Land pillaging - making it more lucrative would improve the campaign.

[hanbarc]

Tied in with army feeding and supply lines.

While looting the land outside cities in past TW games had some bad effect on the defending faction's economy, it was relatively minor, so defenders (especially AI) would normally let armies advance all the way to their walls. And it had little significance for the attacking faction's economy, especially compared to the benefits of just taking the region's city. If pillaging had a much bigger economic effect, for both the attackers (gain much more money) and the defenders (lose more money/growth/happiness), and the campaign AI was programmed to take it into account, the following would be true:

-Encourages land battles outside cities, as defenders will want to kill attackers if they can before their economy is ruined too much. Aggressive armies could pick the ground they want to fight on.

-Makes small scale raids viable and fun - who cares if you lose most of a small army eventually if you can plunder a significant amount of gold/resources first.

-Encourages tactical deployment of defending forces (forts) to guard key areas of the map to counter raids/advancing armies.

-A successful war might no longer just be about how much landgrabbing you can do as quickly as possible. You could also try to bleed a faction dry in the longer term by clever raiding of key resources, while you turtle for a secondary push.


As far as realism goes, armies on the march need feeding, something missing in past games. Improved pillaging, maybe along with simple supply lines, could represent that. Stationary camped armies in foreign soil would run out of stuff to pillage and start to lose numbers to hunger/disease/angry locals.

To balance gameplay, I would include disadvantageous secondary effects of too much raiding, such as diplo penalties ("your raiding is barbaric!"), penalties to happiness in home cities/with senate when you lose troops, etc. Maybe make it more viable for certain 'barbaric' factions (Germanic/Gallic tribes) than 'civilised' ones (Rome, Greece etc).

[Slaists]

Hmm, at least part of the equation does not need improvement in my opinion. In all previous titles (from S1 and MTW1 all the way to S2) it was too easy for the player to get loads of cash after some point in the game. To be more exact: it was probably too hard at the beginning and way too easy from mid-game on.

Of course, part of it was that the AI was never able to purposely set up and maintain economic blockades (aside from odd port raids).

As for the other part (the damage to the economy from pillaging): not sure it needs much improvement either. Provinces being pillaged lost a significant portion of their income. Of course, since it's just the target province being affected (and it's trade partners), the total income of the player might not suffer that much.

[JaM]

realistically, no army ever profited anything from pilaging or foraging.. Soldiers are strange fellows, if they find a cave full of wine, they will break all kegs to find the one with the best wine in it... There was always a unwritten rule of pilaging - first takes it all... Romans would probably not do it, as they were affraid of punishment, but if no officer was around...

[bobbin]

realistically, no army ever profited anything from pilaging or foraging.. Soldiers are strange fellows, if they find a cave full of wine, they will break all kegs to find the one with the best wine in it... There was always a unwritten rule of pilaging - first takes it all... Romans would probably not do it, as they were affraid of punishment, but if no officer was around...

Foraging no, thats just gathering food. But pillaging was a major source of income for most soldiers of the time, one of the reasons army camps were targeted so much in battle was because they contained all the loot the enemy soldiers had acquired duing their campaign.

What do you have in mind? If I remember correctly it was Gauls who burned everything to prevent Romans resuply... it's actually a classical example of how not to wage war

Scourched earth? Its a very effective tactic, just look at Russia turning back invasions by Napoleon and Nazi Germany, or for a example specific to the time period the Scythians defeat of the Persian Invasion. The problem for the Gauls (well some of them as many were actually allies of Caesar) was that the Romans managed to trap them in Alesia, once penned in there the sourched earth tactics were rendered useless.

[Sharpe]

Pillaging should be functional, not profitable. The more efficiently you pillage the longer you can stay in the field/have higher morale.

[Slaists]

Pillaging should be functional, not profitable. The more efficiently you pillage the longer you can stay in the field/have higher morale.

That sounds more like "foraging"

Pillaging to me is more what Cesar did in Gaul.

[JaM]

What do you have in mind? If I remember correctly it was Gauls who burned everything to prevent Romans resuply... it's actually a classical example of how not to wage war... Gauls burned crops and villages, so Romans didn't have enough of food. Romans sieged Alesia, so Gauls starved. When Gauls send their woman, children and old out so Romans would have to take care of them, they couldn't do it even if they wanted, as they didn't had enough food... so if you want to wage total war, you have to be prepared for total consequences...

[Slaists]

What do you have in mind? If I remember correctly it was Gauls who burned everything to prevent Romans resuply... it's actually a classical example of how not to wage war... Gauls burned crops and villages, so Romans didn't have enough of food. Romans sieged Alesia, so Gauls starved. When Gauls send their woman, children and old out so Romans would have to take care of them, they couldn't do it even if they wanted, as they didn't had enough food... so if you want to wage total war, you have to be prepared for total consequences...

History books [and the Senate of Rome] claim that Cesar made himself "monstrously rich" in the process of waging war in Gaul. I take, that wealth did not come from selling ancient versions of McDonald's franchises to the barbarians. Rather, towns got sacked, populations sold into slavery, etc.

It would seem, Cesar was just repeating what his son in law (Pompey Magnus) did in Asia [also, amassing considerable wealth in the process of waging war].

[HappyGoodVibes]

History books [and the Senate of Rome] claim that Cesar made himself "monstrously rich" in the process of waging war in Gaul. I take, that wealth did not come from selling ancient versions of McDonald's franchises to the barbarians. Rather, towns got sacked, populations sold into slavery, etc.

It would seem, Cesar was just repeating what his son in law (Pompey Magnus) did in Asia [also, amassing considerable wealth in the process of waging war].

What I have read about the Games that Caesar held after he came back to Rome is amazing. They filled the Colosseum with water and held a naval battle. He had multiple full land battles inside the Colosseum, and all sorts of crazy . He started spending so much money that the people actually got angry and were rioting because of how in excess all the events that he held were.

I don't remember everything that happened, but there was a whole list of insanely extravagant things that probably have not happened since.

[Slaists]

What I have read about the Games that Caesar held after he came back to Rome is amazing. They filled the Colosseum with water and held a naval battle. He had multiple full land battles inside the Colosseum, and all sorts of crazy . He started spending so much money that the people actually got angry and were rioting because of how in excess all the events that he held were.

I don't remember everything that happened, but there was a whole list of insanely extravagant things that probably have not happened since.

Compare that to the boredom that modern-day high office candidates are offering in their pre-election campaigns

Hear that O-a! We want our naval battles in Colosseum! And chariot races! Or else... we might join the Pompeian faction.

[JaM]

History books [and the Senate of Rome] claim that Cesar made himself "monstrously rich" in the process of waging war in Gaul. I take, that wealth did not come from selling ancient versions of McDonald's franchises to the barbarians. Rather, towns got sacked, populations sold into slavery, etc.

It would seem, Cesar was just repeating what his son in law (Pompey Magnus) did in Asia [also, amassing considerable wealth in the process of waging war].

But Caesar got rich because he finished the war, not just because his soldiers pillaged the neighboring villages... He sold all captives to slavery, confiscated their wealth after he defeated them.

[Slaists]

But Caesar got rich because he finished the war, not just because his soldiers pillaged the neighboring villages... He sold all captives to slavery, confiscated their wealth after he defeated them.

The Gallic Wars (as written by Cesar) suggest his campaigns in France was not a war won and completed in one stroke but rather a series of engagements that span almost a decade. There's also evidence of him amassing wealth during the whole process rather than in a single "conclusion of the war". After all, he was buying political favors and alliances back in Rome all the while waging the war on Gauls.

[krisslanza]

History books [and the Senate of Rome] claim that Cesar made himself "monstrously rich" in the process of waging war in Gaul. I take, that wealth did not come from selling ancient versions of McDonald's franchises to the barbarians. Rather, towns got sacked, populations sold into slavery, etc.

It would seem, Cesar was just repeating what his son in law (Pompey Magnus) did in Asia [also, amassing considerable wealth in the process of waging war].

The slavery was probably the main source of income. Slaves, for a long, long time, were an incredibly lucrative "trade good". Aside from particularly rich cities, mostly what you're pillaging is probably poor people's trinkets and maybe some nice stuff. You make far more money just enslaving people.

[Border Patrol]

Warscape already has a simplified (isn't it always?) version of the system you describe. Attack the minor region buildings: enemy loses profits, population becomes unhappy due to devastation, town growth goes negative, etc.

[JaM]

Slaists: thats correct, my point was he gained wealth from selling captives into slavery while confiscating their possessions. Its not like he got rich from burning down the villages, that was not that profitable... plus, Romans didn't allowed their soldiers to pillage on their own, because it lowered the morale (nothing is worse than two soldiers fighting over some garbage)...

[bobbin]

They didn't commonly allow individual soldiers to pillage that is true, but they did carry out organised mass plundering during their campaigns, with the commander deciding the distribution of the loot.

Although its not all to do with the Romans though, there are plenty of other factions in the game who would most certainly have pillaged extensively, such as the various barbarian tribes or the Hellenistic Kingdoms.

[Rorarii]

Tribal societies found it very profitable raiding neighbouring lands, stealing cattle and women. Romulus was probably a chief of raiders.

Never forget men in tribes need to be productive somehow, raiding promotes warrior skills and courage. Why work when you can steal ! ... isn't that a Democrat slogan ??

BTW, Hanbarc, i like your idea alot ... BUT I suspect getting the AI to do it properly will take too much work.

R

[Shaio]

mayhaps Romans should get a chunk of slaves every time they raid one of those small outposts.

[RGA]

Meh, enslavement occured mostly after major victory siege battles, where the whole town was either sold or put to the sword. Significant income came only after significant bloodshed. There was no "easy money", even in ancient times.

Pillaging was the ancient version of guerilla warfare, and there were risks for both sides. While major battles were rare, small battles between pillaging parties were everyday's business. Thererfore, the idea of sending just a small unit to ravage the whole countryside is totally unrealistic, since such tiny force would be decimated in no time.

[Biggus Splenus]

There was no "easy money", even in ancient times.

Indeed there was; slavery. That's how all the Roman Generals got rich.

And it wasn't just towns that got enslaved, entire cities have been too. Read about the Roman siege of Capua during the 2nd Punic War