Gamechanging idea about Movement Points

[Subotai!]

I was recently playing a campaign as Armenia, and I have to say its one of the funnest/challenging I have yet to play. In my opinion their roster is perfect, average early infantry, but awesome cavalry and decent horse archers. Anyway the campaign was challenging, initially Royal Sythia tore through the Caucasus mountains and steamrolled Colchis and Trapezos and decided to "flank" me by taking some of my southern cities. It was really quick and surprising, fun as well to fight two full stacks of Scythian horse archers, it was really challenging needless to say, but I managed to crush them. Anyway after that the Seleucids declared war on me, and though they never attacked me, Persia sent 3 1/2 full stacks, as they had carved out quite an Empire out of Media atropatanae. As I had gotten a little bored and sent 1 1/2 stacks on a colonization spree in Thrace/Bithinia, I could only field 1 stack against them. I defeated 2 of their stacks with mine, which was difficult since the AI had lots of decent units (which I have never seen before in Rome 2, well done DEI team!). Afte i would defeat one army, another would take a city. Rinse, repeat. Soon I had no cities in the area and my army started to starve. They pretty much carved up armenia for themselves after that. With a starving army running like crazy, and a full stack on the way things are looking dim... I dont mind the difficulty, I just thought of a realism idea. Nations are always getting steamrolled in Rome 2, right? In my campaign, royal sythia had 3 full provinces and then suddenly, Roxolani takes all of them in like 5-6 turns (no kidding). Then persia steamrolls me because i have only one army to fend off their 4.

The solution? just cut the movement points of an army in an enemy territory in half. Not sure if it possible, but it would add alot to the campaign, and would be realistic. It would give slower assimilation, so you wouldn't have just 20 factions after a few turns, and would give nations who are stronger more time to build up garrisons to prevent them from being rolled over a few turns later, instead of going on an attacking spree. In my case, I could have defeated one army, then retreated to replenish while the enemy slowly advances. This gives the defender a distinct advantage, especially when two large nations are at war. Its also very realistic, as friendly populations and local garrisons would attack supply lines, destroy bridges, etc. while an enemy force invaded. As of now, moving in a hostile area has no cons, this is really unrealistic.

EDIT: Is there a way to make a one turn siege limit time, like in the classic Total Wars? This would allow defenders the chance to react, instead of Mongolian horde-like expansion.

Not bashing the mod, I love DEI myself, but this would add alot of depth and realism to the game. What do yall think?

[Butan]

Doesnt enemy armies cant use the road speed bonus, and then have a much slower movement speed on the map than allied forces?

[Phil2]

just cut the movement points of an army in an enemy territory in half

I like the idea
But don't know if it is easily modable...or even doable.

[Marcus Marcellus]

I think this could be a nice touch, but the whole supply line problem could be displayed differently perhaps? Like a "stance"?

[GatoVolador]

I think this could be a nice touch, but the whole supply line problem could be displayed differently perhaps? Like a "stance"?

I think the idea is cool, and add utility to the traits and traditions that add mov.points in enemy territory.
But the thing with the stance could be used as follow:
In warfare there is a strategie called "burned ground". You know the enemy will steamroll you. Your army is comming, but not fast enough. If the enemy manages to control xyz, you are totally *d. So you raze everything between the enemy and xyz. It is a hard decision to make, because you are destroying the land you should protect, not something done lightly. This, combined with some fast assaults behind enemy lines could buy you that extra little time...
So in game the "raze" stance could be different if done on owned territory. Something like a small gold gain (one or two years income), additional mov. penalties for the enemy (maybe some attrition too?) and a huge happiness and economic penalty over many turns (6 to 10?) in that province, plus a small happiness penalty all over your empire to represent the generall discontent of using such a method.

[Subotai!]

I think the idea is cool, and add utility to the traits and traditions that add mov.points in enemy territory.
But the thing with the stance could be used as follow:
In warfare there is a strategie called "burned ground". You know the enemy will steamroll you. Your army is comming, but not fast enough. If the enemy manages to control xyz, you are totally *d. So you raze everything between the enemy and xyz. It is a hard decision to make, because you are destroying the land you should protect, not something done lightly. This, combined with some fast assaults behind enemy lines could buy you that extra little time...
So in game the "raze" stance could be different if done on owned territory. Something like a small gold gain (one or two years income), additional mov. penalties for the enemy (maybe some attrition too?) and a huge happiness and economic penalty over many turns (6 to 10?) in that province, plus a small happiness penalty all over your empire to represent the generall discontent of using such a method.

Wow, you guys have some great ideas. I believe your referring to the "scorched earth" policy that has been used time and time again in history. Perhaps this could replace the "forced march" stance and, like gatovolador was saying, have a happiness and economic penalty, but the enemy begins to starve a little bit, like 2% per turn perhaps. This would add sooo much depth to the campaigns.

[mfdoom]

NO!It is a idea!Learn how to play and stop with your nonsense!That part of the game is the most interesting one, after you take 5-6 provinces the game is over anyway.

[Syntax]

NO!It is a idea!Learn how to play and stop with your nonsense!That part of the game is the most interesting one, after you take 5-6 provinces the game is over anyway.

mfdoom
WOW you kinda a very cooperative member aren't u? And sorry we didn't know that we have such genious in the forum who is kind the best in this game anyway....
If someone has another opinion - no problem at all, but there is a certain way to discuss in a civil manner....
unbelievable post! if there only would be a -[minus] REP....


Back to topic:
Great idea - would add a lot to the game play

[mfdoom]

mfdoom
WOW you kinda a very cooperative member aren't u? And sorry we didn't know that we have such genious in the forum who is kind the best in this game anyway....
If someone has another opinion - no problem at all, but there is a certain way to discuss in a civil manner....
unbelievable post! if there only would be a -[minus] REP....


Back to topic:
Great idea - would add a lot to the game play

I see no reason to nag me like that.All i am saying is that decreasing movement points would make the game slugish, and that what he experienced is the best part of R2 ,namely the beginning.After 4-5 provinces almost every player is able to consolidate his power and can steamroll anything in his path.Especially larger realms since most of the time 20+ settlement Hayasdan is easier compared to 1-2-3 settlement Liguri,Raeti or Nori in the beginning.Simple as that.

[Syntax]

I see no reason to nag me like that.All i am saying is that decreasing movement points would make the game slugish, and that what he experienced is the best part of R2 ,namely the beginning.After 4-5 provinces almost every player is able to consolidate his power and can steamroll anything in his path.Especially larger realms since most of the time 20+ settlement Hayasdan is easier compared to 1-2-3 settlement Liguri,Raeti or Nori in the beginning.Simple as that.

U see it is possible to discuss in a civil maner....why I naged you like this - isn't it clear to u? - you used the f...word and your whole post sounded offensive towards another oppinion. Lern how to play and stop with your nonsense - that was your statement. Justification: u used one time a "out of the sky assumtion" that the poster can't play, and second u called his opinion "nonsense". If count one and two together plus add the f...word - your post was abusive.

I appreciate your last coments where u explained your opinion in a normal form and it was helpful as u also have a point in your statement!

I/nobody will nag - if u not abuse others - so peace, it's snow from yesterday... and have a good day.

[Maetharin]

I like the idea, especially since invading armies were often slowed by a massive baggage train, and had to take cities on the way to secure their line of supply! I also think this should be affected by culture, barbarian factions surely weren´t as effective at securing supply lines as civilized nations, but faster on the first advance... so maybe advancement should be boosted by cultural conversion, thus simulating the slow progress of securing a province after conquering it´s capital

[Hetairos]

For the interested people, It is easy moddable and it has been done already in one or another way out there.

[boblikesoup]

I really like the idea of slower movement in enemy territory. 50% seems a bit steep though because enemies can marshal their armies and kite you too easily. I personally think a 33% penalty will slow it down enough to prevent those single-turn base assaults out of nowhere.

[Moonflower]

I personally think a 33% penalty will slow it down enough to prevent those single-turn base assaults out of nowhere.

Dear God yes please. As Carthage you're practically forced to take out Syracuse right away, subjugate or occupy, else be constantly forced to maintain a full stack or more garrison in Lilybaeum.

[Maetharin]

Dear God yes please. As Carthage you're practically forced to take out Syracuse right away, subjugate or occupy, else be constantly forced to maintain a full stack or more garrison in Lilybaeum.

About that, did the Carthaginians ever conquer Syracuse? I think because of it´s heavy fortification it was at some times besieged, but never seized, until the roman attack during the second punic war...

[boblikesoup]

I really like the idea of slower movement in enemy territory. 50% seems a bit steep though because enemies can marshal their armies and kite you too easily. I personally think a 33% penalty will slow it down enough to prevent those single-turn base assaults out of nowhere.

[Maetharin]

I really like the idea of slower movement in enemy territory. 50% seems a bit steep though because enemies can marshal their armies and kite you too easily. I personally think a 33% penalty will slow it down enough to prevent those single-turn base assaults out of nowhere.

I think it should just be tested what kind of impact certain values for different factions would have.
Another idea, how about making fielding an army in enemy territory more expensive? Or have the cost of sustaining your army dependant on cultural conversion?
Edit: next idea, why not make an army slower/more expensive the bigger the stack gets? Bigger army equals bigger/slower/more expensive baggage train/line of supply!

[Subotai!]

I think it should just be tested what kind of impact certain values for different factions would have.
Another idea, how about making fielding an army in enemy territory more expensive? Or have the cost of sustaining your army dependant on cultural conversion?
Edit: next idea, why not make an army slower/more expensive the bigger the stack gets? Bigger army equals bigger/slower/more expensive baggage train/line of supply!

Superb idea! Then you could have "raiding parties" that could escape the grasps of large enemy armies. As of now, it seems that all you need is 3 full stacks and just bulldoze with autoresolve like a noob. Basing movement points off of army size and territory would be both realistic and strategic. If Dresden decides not to include this, somebody should totally make a "Realistic Movements" submod.

[boblikesoup]

I think it should just be tested what kind of impact certain values for different factions would have.
Another idea, how about making fielding an army in enemy territory more expensive? Or have the cost of sustaining your army dependent on cultural conversion?
Edit: next idea, why not make an army slower/more expensive the bigger the stack gets? Bigger army equals bigger/slower/more expensive baggage train/line of supply!

So armies move like 1-2% slower for each unit added? Workaround though is to have two small armies than 1 big one... Need a deeper system, but on the right track.

Like the idea that nomadic cultures travel faster in enemy territories than other cultures.

[KAM 2150]

So armies move like 1-2% slower for each unit added? Workaround though is to have two small armies than 1 big one... Need a deeper system, but on the right track.

Like the idea that nomadic cultures travel faster in enemy territories than other cultures.

This workaround would in some occasions actually end badly for player if his armies would be attacked spearately Even if both armies would join the battle, then there is still some time before they can reach eachother, hence dividing army might not be that great idea Plus historically armies divided from time to time to move faster.