Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: Opening rounds: Conquer or Disband?

  1. #21

    Default Re: Opening rounds: Conquer or Disband?

    Stopping a player from blobbing (if he wants to do so) is arguably impossible. Look at EU4: It feels like 80 per cent of that game's mechanics (and it has a lot!) are aimed preventing factions from blobbing. Nevertheless, you can still blob to the extreme, even though it requires more skill than in TW games.

  2. #22

    Default Re: Opening rounds: Conquer or Disband?

    I think most factions have neighbouring rebel provinces with rebel armies in them. Those armies are going to stand around by your borders and cause devastation, severely crippling your economy. So at the very least you need your starting troops to deal with them.

  3. #23
    Raffula's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sardinia
    Posts
    56

    Default Re: Opening rounds: Conquer or Disband?

    A good way to limit the huge income in late game, is the Bellum Crucis script sistem: each turn, you pay 500 for each city conquered following this scheme: beginning number of provinces (N): 0 surplus
    From N+1 to N+10: 500 each province
    From N+11 to N+20 1000 each province
    From N+21 to N+30 1500 each.. obviously, the amount must be calcoulated with the eb2 system


    Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

  4. #24

    Default Re: Opening rounds: Conquer or Disband?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raffula View Post
    A good way to limit the huge income in late game, is the Bellum Crucis script sistem: each turn, you pay 500 for each city conquered following this scheme: beginning number of provinces (N): 0 surplus
    From N+1 to N+10: 500 each province
    From N+11 to N+20 1000 each province
    From N+21 to N+30 1500 each.. obviously, the amount must be calcoulated with the eb2 system


    Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
    Why is it based on the number of starting provinces? That gives an advantage to those who start large, and effectively sets that advantage in stone.

  5. #25
    Raffula's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sardinia
    Posts
    56

    Default Re: Opening rounds: Conquer or Disband?

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    Why is it based on the number of starting provinces? That gives an advantage to those who start large, and effectively sets that advantage in stone.

    This can be changed, can be turned in capital+1 etc..


    Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

  6. #26
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    8,451

    Default Re: Opening rounds: Conquer or Disband?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raffula View Post
    A good way to limit the huge income in late game, is the Bellum Crucis script sistem: each turn, you pay 500 for each city conquered following this scheme: beginning number of provinces (N): 0 surplus
    From N+1 to N+10: 500 each province
    From N+11 to N+20 1000 each province
    From N+21 to N+30 1500 each.. obviously, the amount must be calcoulated with the eb2 system
    I'm trying to understand why such a system is advantegous from simply increasing the corruption rate or increasing the unrest in the settlements.
    To my mind the anti-snowball-system (or rather money-expansion balance system) should work as follows:
    * the more settlements you conquer the more far-away they are, and more of their income is eaten by corruption (diminishing marginal benefits),
    * unrest in those cities make a player to keep troops in garrisoning plus the likehood of rebellions (creating of devastion) forces you to keep a certain number of armies within your territories (increasing marginal costs),
    * this limits the number of your forces for conquests what is conjuction with increasing number of fronts and potential enemy incursions make you expanding less and less.
    * the way to overcome is to build your economy to be able to pay wages for more troops. So you stop to expand earlier and build up your economy.
    As a result there's no need for artificial solutions as described above.
    I see just one difference: for territories packed densely with cites (like Greece, Spain or Asia Minor) the corruption is less painfull that for vast ones (like the steppes). But still, it might be balanced otherwise, mightn't it.
    Last edited by Jurand of Cracow; June 06, 2017 at 07:01 AM.

  7. #27

    Default Re: Opening rounds: Conquer or Disband?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raffula View Post
    This can be changed, can be turned in capital+1 etc..


    Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
    Capitals move. There's no such code flag as "this settlement is the capital" that can be used for scripting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    I'm trying to understand why such a system is advantegous from simply increasing the corruption rate or increasing the unrest in the settlements.
    To my mind the anti-snowball-system (or rather money-expansion balance system) should work as follows:
    * the more settlements you conquer the more far-away they are, and more of their income is eaten by corruption (diminishing marginal benefits),
    * unrest in those cities make a player to keep troops in garrisoning plus the likehood of rebellions (creating of devastion) forces you to keep a certain number of armies within your territories (increasing marginal costs),
    * this limits the number of your forces for conquests what is conjuction with increasing number of fronts and potential enemy incursions make you expanding less and less.
    * the way to overcome is to build your economy to be able to pay wages for more troops. So you stop to expand earlier and build up your economy.
    As a result there's no need for artificial solutions as described above.
    I see just one difference: for territories packed densely with cites (like Greece, Spain or Asia Minor) the corruption is less painfull that for vast ones (like the steppes). But still, it might be balanced otherwise, mightn't it.
    Agreed, using the mechanics we already have is a much better approach than trying to dream up something entirely bespoke.

    We already have the ability to vary those impacts by city/castle, they're in use with distance from capital and some other facets of the descr_settlement_mechanics.

  8. #28
    Raffula's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sardinia
    Posts
    56

    Default Re: Opening rounds: Conquer or Disband?

    I think the actual sistem of unrest and corruption is perfect.. Personally, i prefere something entirely bespoke, but wich the player know and can calculate, and wich is also friendly with a "role-hystoric motivation", like a higher cost for infrastructure, local security etc for the far provinces..
    working on an increased unrest and Corruption, for my opinion is boring, because if i build all the building that increase public order and legality, reached an high cultual level, why the hell the province must have an high unrest and an high corruption?? And need a big army garrisoning the city?!! If we think "historically" the same stack needed to keep the public order in a province conquered 50 years ago is the same stack that can conquer an empire.. not historically accurate..

    Quintus please i like you and i think you are too smart for an expeditious answer like that.. tell me that you don't want any forced script for eb2, and i get it. but you can find 100 different way to make working fine a system like this one!


    Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

  9. #29
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    8,451

    Default Re: Opening rounds: Conquer or Disband?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raffula View Post
    I think the actual sistem of unrest and corruption is perfect.. Personally, i prefere something entirely bespoke, but wich the player know and can calculate, and wich is also friendly with a "role-hystoric motivation", like a higher cost for infrastructure, local security etc for the far provinces..
    working on an increased unrest and Corruption, for my opinion is boring, because if i build all the building that increase public order and legality, reached an high cultual level, why the hell the province must have an high unrest and an high corruption?? And need a big army garrisoning the city?!! If we think "historically" the same stack needed to keep the public order in a province conquered 50 years ago is the same stack that can conquer an empire.. not historically accurate.
    A few points/questions from my side:
    1. the corruption was inherent in any system and would eat most of the resources. Always, irrespectively of the public order and cultural values. Corruptio humanum est. The more far-away provice, the less possibilities to control it from the centre, what is reflected in it rising with the distance.
    2. "if we think "historically" the same stack needed to keep the public order in a province conquered 50 years ago is the same stack that can conquer an empire.. not historically accurate.." - actually, the non-accurate issue is that there's no risk of rebellion of such a garrison. I think in history every commander of a garrison had many incentives to rebel - and many did. The M2TW engine allows settlment to rebel if they've got high level of unrest plus the generals to rebel if they have low loyalty and are outside a settlement. So the current system is a kind of compromise between reality and the engine. And still - after some time and some acculturation the unrest indeed goes down.
    3. what is the "historicity" behind the system of artificial subtraction of money for N+10 city etc. as implemented in Bellum Crucis?
    4. why actually aritificial scripted system would be better than the automatic unrest-corruption system?
    Besides - I think the distance should play even more role given that it was difficult to transfer the purchasing power (or resources) - collecting taxes in coins were most effective transport-wise: a box needed to be transported instead of a whole ship of grain. For many factions the dependent territories would actually provide only troops for campaigns (how to transport grain across the mountains?). Monetization of the economy was crucial for building up the Roman Empire. I'm still to discover it there's a building called "The Mint" in the EBII and what does it make ;-)

  10. #30
    Raffula's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sardinia
    Posts
    56

    Default Re: Opening rounds: Conquer or Disband?

    Don't misunderstand me, i think the actual corruption-unrest system is perfect, indeed i don't want one more increase of unrest-corruption..
    for the point 2- is a game, you must also use the imagination..
    more larger and extended empire, need higer cost for infrastructure, government, burocracy etc =the scripted cost, i prefere know that if i conquer one more province, i will pay 500 each turn for control it, instead an unmotivated increase of corruption, that for balancing a snow ball effect, become unrealistic and forced


    Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

  11. #31
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    8,451

    Default Re: Opening rounds: Conquer or Disband?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raffula View Post
    Don't misunderstand me, i think the actual corruption-unrest system is perfect, indeed i don't want one more increase of unrest-corruption..
    more larger and extended empire, need higer cost for infrastructure, government, burocracy etc =the scripted cost, i prefere know that if i conquer one more province, i will pay 500 each turn for control it, instead an unmotivated increase of corruption, that for balancing a snow ball effect, become unrealistic and forced
    I think fighting snow-ball through corruption-unrest has two advantages:
    1. it's easier to get understand for all the players what's going on (I can imagine people complaining if done otherwise: why I'm losing suddenly that money? I didn't know there's a script! why such a script? can I remove it? etc.)
    2. a player actually has some tools to fight corruption: you send a good general with high Law to squeeze more money from a particularly good settlemetn (I find it very historical - kings would send their sons exactly to the most money-making settlements). I think it's good for role-playing: player is more interested in rearing good generals.

  12. #32
    Raffula's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sardinia
    Posts
    56

    Default Re: Opening rounds: Conquer or Disband?

    Yeeeeeeeeeess but we are not talking about this system, this work fine and is good!! I repeat: actually for me is perfect..
    But the problem of snow ball effect is not resolved, amd for fight it i think we can not work with the corruption-unrest system, because is already perfect, have reached his limit.
    If we increase more those, the game become boring, illogical, and not hystorically accurated


    Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •