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

Thread: The case for reduced campaign movement for armies

  1. #21

    Default Re: The case for reduced campaign movement for armies

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooz View Post
    I wonder what you would think of just the opposite, increased campaign movement.
    It would be an interesting variation! The issues about not being able to use terrain for defence would still stand though and you would see armies parked in cities always to ensure a defence against a surprise invasion, which would result in siegework on turn 1.

    I can also see myself centralising all my stacks so I can move them into a counter strike to any corner of the nation, in force. i.e. I could concentrate my 5 stacks against the single stack that dared to invade, and if a neighbour on the other side of the country decided to take advantage and force me into a 2 front war, it would be relatively easy to bounce backwards and forwards, using my core regions to reinforce my pure elite stacks (why bother with regional troops if you can always rely on core supply?)

    It certainly makes the defense / offense very elastic, but I think over all I prefer the slower speed because you canīt compensate for a mistake in positioning which makes structuring your empireīs defence, something you really need to think about carefully. I like it when mistakes are heavily punished.

    Since small march range also makes it impossible to cover all frontiers militarily 100% beacuse you need a local response force due to not having access to a fast moving centralised reserve, you also will make more of an effort to appease neighbors in weak fronts, and play a more refined diplomatic game.

    I donīt think expanding years from 4 to 12 turns is a good formula though, honestly 400-500 turns of gameplay is plenty time to move around. Besides, stacks donīt necessarily have to slow down to a crawl (except in winter?), they may just need a-50% or 60% malus during campaign season and -80% or -90% in winter. Or even, keep winter movement only slightly below normal speed but make getting caught in enemy lands with a poor logistician, severely punishing for morale. In fact you could grant speed bonuses for starving armies so they can retreat quickly to friendly territory, but give them a terrific morale hit so they may be tempted to assault a town only under the banner of a great leader. Staying in place would be a bad idea as you are likely to rout if you get counter attacked.

    I bet many seasoned generals would meet their first true strategic defeats in years of gameplay, because lets be honest, who here has ever lost a city to the AI?

  2. #22
    z3n's Avatar State of Mind
    Patrician Artifex Modding Staff Director

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,643

    Default Re: The case for reduced campaign movement for armies

    As far as I knew the AI actually considers the extent of its default movement range its 'vision' as well, it cannot see past anything it can't move into.
    The AI Workshop Creator
    Europa Barbaroum II AI/Game Mechanics Developer
    The Northern Crusades Lead Developer
    Classical Age Total War Retired Lead Developer
    Rome: Total Realism Animation Developer
    RTW Workshop Assistance MTW2 AI Tutorial & Assistance
    Broken Crescent Submod (M2TW)/IB VGR Submod (BI)/Animation (RTW/BI/ALX)/TATW PCP Submod (M2TW)/TATW DaC Submod (M2TW)/DeI Submod (TWR2)/SS6.4 Northern European UI Mod (M2TW)

  3. #23
    James the Red's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,631

    Default Re: The case for reduced campaign movement for armies

    Quote Originally Posted by z3n View Post
    As far as I knew the AI actually considers the extent of its default movement range its 'vision' as well, it cannot see past anything it can't move into.
    What about agents? If the enemy has spies that have a lot of movement points but armies that have low movement, what happens? Or what about if some units have a lot of movement points and others that don't (Is that possible?)? Say they gave skirmishers and light cavalry a lot more MP than stronger units?

  4. #24
    z3n's Avatar State of Mind
    Patrician Artifex Modding Staff Director

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,643

    Default Re: The case for reduced campaign movement for armies

    Spies might help I never paid much attention, I think they factor in during an invasion planning phase but I'm pretty sure we limit the number of AI agents including spies.

    You can only adjust cavalry movement range, that's in the descr_campaign_db.


    Honestly, I just see it doing more harm than good to your game. Even if you're trying to RP - it won't help much.
    The AI Workshop Creator
    Europa Barbaroum II AI/Game Mechanics Developer
    The Northern Crusades Lead Developer
    Classical Age Total War Retired Lead Developer
    Rome: Total Realism Animation Developer
    RTW Workshop Assistance MTW2 AI Tutorial & Assistance
    Broken Crescent Submod (M2TW)/IB VGR Submod (BI)/Animation (RTW/BI/ALX)/TATW PCP Submod (M2TW)/TATW DaC Submod (M2TW)/DeI Submod (TWR2)/SS6.4 Northern European UI Mod (M2TW)

  5. #25
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,590

    Default Re: The case for reduced campaign movement for armies

    Like z3n said, there's no real differentiation beyond infantry/cavalry for MP allowance. You can't vary by anything more detailed than that, and it uses the lowest MP in the stack to calculate movement.

  6. #26
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    2,515

    Default Re: The case for reduced campaign movement for armies

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooz View Post
    I wonder what you would think of just the opposite, increased campaign movement.
    My experience from the Broken Crescent mod tells me that's a very bad idea. It benefits only the player (the AI is indecisive as always) and makes the campaign much easier. I think the EBII rates are ok as they're right now.

  7. #27
    Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AEnima City, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Default Re: The case for reduced campaign movement for armies

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    My experience from the Broken Crescent mod tells me that's a very bad idea. It benefits only the player (the AI is indecisive as always) and makes the campaign much easier. I think the EBII rates are ok as they're right now.
    It definitely requires more of a roleplaying mentality from the player, as opposed to trying to win a game mentality. Restraint is up to the individual, if you find the results are more fun than the alternative.

  8. #28

    Default Re: The case for reduced campaign movement for armies

    IMO the main advantage of reduced movement speed is, when combined with 12 turns per year, allows for campaign map decisions to be far more important. For example, positioning armies close enough to catch an enemy incursion in time, before they siege the city - basically it looks more like chess where you need to think ahead a few turns, instead of relying on huge movement to make up for your bad positioning/carelessnes. Each turn represent a month so it is possible to add more granularity to things like traits, unit recruitment, etc.
    The disadvantages are, as has been mentioned, that the campaign becomes extremely long, so if there are certain dates where events happen (ex. mongols in m2tw, reforms in eb2), then most players may not even see them. For EB2, i think attempting 12 tpy as it is would not be practical, due to the large period the mod covers. If there were 3 different start/end dates (early, mid, late) then i could see it working properly.
    Last edited by Hellenikon; November 26, 2017 at 09:08 PM.

  9. #29

    Default Re: The case for reduced campaign movement for armies

    It's pretty clear that the mod team sees more minus than plus with decreased movement. However. Anybody who wants to experience that for roleplay or just sheer degree of difficulty reasons can fairly easily add a script that applies a movement malus to all the human owned FMs. Just enforce a house rule on yourself that armies must be led by FMs, and voila. Reduced movement that does not adversely effect the AI.
    EBII Council

  10. #30

    Default Re: The case for reduced campaign movement for armies

    I found an old post in the Team Room, from a discussion on the topic of "what's a reasonable army movement distance over a three month period"?

    Quote Originally Posted by paullus View Post
    Full-stack comparably-sized armies could pretty regularly cover 500 miles in a 3 month period, and that's assuming 1-2 stops every 3-5 days' march and a pretty relaxed pace. But there are (rare) examples of armies covering 800-1000 in 3 months. Generally, armies reached their destination well before having to march for 3 months.

    Well-trained soldiers could maintain a pace over 20 miles per day for several days on end, but it was fairly abnormal. Philip V's peltasts, for example, did over 30 per day for 3-5 days in a row for several surprise attacks, and special detachments from Alexander's army did the same over up to 6 days, iirc. Roman armies could usually cover 20 miles in a day without trouble, but doing it day after day becomes a big question, and for campaigns we see that 10 miles per marching day was not a bad rate, and often broken up by additional rest days. And roads, friendliness of territory, terrain, and weather all have an influence as well.
    Looking at how things work in game, you can easily load up a Romani campaign and check the marching distance for the stack positioned outside Luceria. By my calculation, it can march roughly 200 miles in any direction, helped at least in part by roads. So given that "500 miles is reasonable", it's hard to make a case that the current movement allowance is excessive.
    EBII Council

  11. #31
    QuintusSertorius's Avatar EBII Hod Carrier
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,590

    Default Re: The case for reduced campaign movement for armies

    Add to which, steppe armies comprised entirely of cavalry, with 4 remounts per man, could easily double or even triple that distance.

  12. #32
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    2,515

    Default Re: The case for reduced campaign movement for armies

    There's been a somehow similar discussion on the DIK forum.
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...map-Discussion

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
  •