Modeling feudalism

[Dekhatres]

no idea, probably significant, but i dont see how other way you would simulate your desired feudal cycle of assembling the army, campaign for a while then disband it all

how much do you actually want a feudal system ?

well it sucks that we dont have a scripter but i think with the help of the good people in the script and text editing forum we can make a script without needing a dedicated scripter

[Lifthrasir]

And how would you represent the progressive evolution to a professional army? What about the mercenaries then?
I have nothing against the idea but it sounds a bit hazardous

[Dekhatres]

i asked how much you want a feudal system because we can see there will be drawbacks and so in the end it might actually be better to just leave things as they are

perhaps we can start with something simple such as disbanding all feudal units once every 10 turns maybe less maybe more, 10 recruitment slots so that the army can be assembled fast, very little recruitment cost but high upkeep, the feudal units wouldnt disband when in debt because they are not mercenaries, what would happen is simply that you might not be able to summon your army completely next season since you are still recovering treasury
i recall someone posted some historical info about militia during middle ages where it stated that militias generally did not participate in campaigns so militias wont be recruitable, they will only appear in a settlement when it's besieged


for late pro armies they would simply cost more to recruit but have lower upkeep and no seasonal disbanding, well kinda like it is by default

[Lifthrasir]

I'm gonna be honest: I'm not a huge fan of this.
- I have doubt on how the AI will handle it.
- That's not representative to all factions and it might unbalance the game.
- I fear that the player will loose the control of recruitment and management of his armies somehow. It might be good to represent history, not so sure for the gameplay.
I might be wrong but that how I feel it so far.

[officialdeo]

I'm gonna be honest: I'm not a huge fan of this.
- I have doubt on how the AI will handle it.
- That's not representative to all factions and it might unbalance the game.
- I fear that the player will loose the control of recruitment and management of his armies somehow. It might be good to represent history, not so sure for the gameplay.
I might be wrong but that how I feel it so far.

This. The AI does not understand economic exhaustion. It does not understand overextension. Generally speaking, it will aim for military growth and consequently, territorial whenever possible. Only in limited situations will it aim for economic growth, and it rarely will since the AI only understands short-term disincentives, not long-term incentives like we human players do.

For the moment, only humans in this game can think of patiently saving up more than 500K gold over 80 turns for an invasion. Only humans know how to guesstimate how long they can do a campaign before going into the reds or achieving a Pyrrhic victory, and even then some fellow players here have trouble doing that as seen in the general discussion thread and complain about factions being underpowered. Sorry, I don't mean to offend others. How do we keep track of the time limit, I'm not sure if that's even doable within the game engine limit.

It's the reason why I'm thinking if it might be a good idea that feudal units disband when in debt just like mercenaries to simulate the faction leader no longer able to compensate them not tending their own land, with a more severe cost to simulate economic exhaustion from doing a long campaign.

No money = people go home to farm = recruit them again when the faction leader has more money to fund his army.
For a short-term skirmish, mercenaries are viable. Long-term, feudal is better because of better morale, loyalty. Even longer, professional wins.

Even brain dead AI should be able to play well if it only has to be directed with simple incentives for doing things.

[Dekhatres]

disband script should be simple enough so probably no expert scripter required, i think SS already had one iirc

@officialdeo

i must disagree with disbanding feudal units when no money, if we do that then the AI will be forever stuck in a cycle of recruiting and disbanding every 1-3 turns and will never get anything done as his treasury will constatly bounce from positive to negative and viceversa, there needs to be a cooldown on disbanding

besides, it's not like you're not paying your troops anymore, your treasury goes in red and keeps going because you ARE actually paying the soldiers, it's not like if your treasury reaches 0 then your soldiers dont cost money and serve for free, they are getting paid

[officialdeo]

disband script should be simple enough so probably no expert scripter required, i think SS already had one iirc

@officialdeo

i must disagree with disbanding feudal units when no money, if we do that then the AI will be forever stuck in a cycle of recruiting and disbanding every 1-3 turns and will never get anything done as his treasury will constatly bounce from positive to negative and viceversa, there needs to be a cooldown on disbanding

besides, it's not like you're not paying your troops anymore, your treasury goes in red and keeps going because you ARE actually paying the soldiers, it's not like if your treasury reaches 0 then your soldiers dont cost money and serve for free, they are getting paid

Did you read my post about the boom-bust cycle? The cycle will depend on how much wealth the faction is able to generate. Some will be able to fund a 15 to 20 years long campaign, while others will be less than that. This is simple economics that is very much calculable with a spreadsheet. And if some AI factions and human players expand too much, they will simply play on the defensive because the equilibrium is reached, only making normal profit instead of economic profit, even if the accounting profit is high from possessing a lot of territories.

By that time, one of these scenarios may happen:
1. Civil war and uprising, losing the most loosely held territories
2. Lose to foreign incursions due to being spread thin and not able to muster an adequate force. This happened a lot of time in the middle ages
3. Change of fortune that opens up economic profit, representable by good FL traits. Better leaders such as Philip Augustus, John the Fair, etc
4. Change of strategy, it does happen from time to time with the AI, but sometimes need to be forced to do so. This what I often do by teaching stupidly naive factions a lesson i.e. punitive expedition in many of my strategies until they cannot raise a decent army and change their strategy accordingly

They are getting paid from tending their land/fief from the feudal lord in those 320 days out of a year, not professional payment if we want to talk historical. We cannot simulate that but we can simulate no compensation from the king for a prolonged campaign because feudal warfare is expensive in regards to an agricultural centred economy. Hence the kill, rape, and pillage thing.

Consider this, if a faction is insolvent and becomes bankrupt, how is it going to settle its debt if it just keeps the army? Why should any feudal subject, employee or anything in general stick around when they don't receive payment nor any other incentives? Okay, we can finance it with debt (automatically). Here in the game, there is no moneylender to leverage a faction's military campaign and economic growth, nor is there any sort of consequence like asset handover/concession/liquidation when kings fall into debt and have to deal with non-existent moneylenders that just pay the army for the time being. Would any moneylender do that when they see the faction leader has no chance of ever paying? Well, the players somewhat can by manually disbanding units, or in a cheesy way by destroying buildings. AI can't do any of that. So the other way is to reduce liability by means of a layoff, or automatic disbandment game mechanics-wise until the faction becomes solvent again. From that point, the faction can either change its strategy or risk having one of the first two scenarios I mentioned.

And I haven't even got into interest on that debt unless we want to treat it with Islamic shariah law.

It's like we are not even talking on the same wavelength here, even though I'm just explaining simple economics. That's what enables every snowballing in this game.

[Lifthrasir]

Please saty on topics Gents
Thanks.

The AI usually recruit units everywhere and then, gather them into a stack before to launch its attack. If we disband the units too early, that stack will never be. If disband too late, it might cause other troubles such as settlement rebellion or left undefended at the worst moment, etc...
Beside and as already mentioned, I fear that the player will loose control of some of his army management, by recruiting them and loosing them with that script. I'm really not convinced it would be good for the gameplay
Beside, how will this feature work for factions with a different system? For example, ERE had a more professional army. Cumans had a tribal system. I've to check but I think that the Russian factions had also a system slightly different and I haven't talked yet for Lithuania.
There are too many parameters to be taken into consideration and a lot of testing would have to be done. That's definitively something that the team can't afford for now imo.

[officialdeo]

Please saty on topics Gents
Thanks.

The AI usually recruit units everywhere and then, gather them into a stack before to launch its attack. If we disband the units too early, that stack will never be. If disband too late, it might cause other troubles such as settlement rebellion or left undefended at the worst moment, etc...
Beside and as already mentioned, I fear that the player will loose control of some of his army management, by recruiting them and loosing them with that script. I'm really not convinced it would be good for the gameplay
Beside, how will this feature work for factions with a different system? For example, ERE had a more professional army. Cumans had a tribal system. I've to check but I think that the Russian factions had also a system slightly different and I haven't talked yet for Lithuania.
There are too many parameters to be taken into consideration and a lot of testing would have to be done. That's definitively something that the team can't afford for now imo.

Noted, Lifthrasir. My apologies.

Sometimes I wonder what else the difference is between feudal and professional units beyond their battle stats and availability. Both are "paid" in the same way. As far as I know, the Roman army consisted of a mix of professional and land-tending soldiers, varying over time depending on the emperor.

Something that I can bypass to create a practically professional army in less than a century, but I digress.

[Lifthrasir]

I agree but it would be illogical to disband such kind of army/units imo. I don't think that they had a clear period to serve the Imperor, at least not like feudal knights with their king. Hence my concern about the gameplay: some faction (with a feudal system disbanding units) will be disadvantaged compare to those who don't have to (ERE, Cumans and possibly Lithuania).

[officialdeo]

I agree but it would be illogical to disband such kind of army/units imo. I don't think that they had a clear period to serve the Imperor, at least not like feudal knights with their king. Hence my concern about the gameplay: some faction (with a feudal system disbanding units) will be disadvantaged compare to those who don't have to (ERE, Cumans and possibly Lithuania).

Honestly, professional units should also be subject to disbandment, but feudal and professional ones more willing to stay longer than mercenaries if it's possible to code. The debt aspect in Total War games is underdeveloped and often taken for granted. I understand this mechanic is not strictly historical, but for the sake of gameplay, it's the best I can propose without making this game a complicated economic simulation.

I think AI Romans will benefit from this since it is usually one of the worst offenders in unchecked military growth. For the Cumans and Lithuanians, I am already thinking of proposing an economy based more on raiding and less reliant on settlement taxation, but with the units' upkeep not that costly to follow suit their tribal, low-quality units. Both of them are already disadvantaged and need different playstyle. Jurand has already alleviated the North Caucasus problem a bit but the plains east of the Carpathian Mountains are still problematic.

[Lifthrasir]

To be historical, a monney devaluation script should be implemented. Not sure it can be done realistically

About professional armies, why having such army if it's to disband it like a feudal one?

[officialdeo]

To be historical, a monney devaluation script should be implemented. Not sure it can be done realistically

About professional armies, why having such army if it's to disband it like a feudal one?

Erm, ideally speaking, yes. Unfortunately, recruitment cost and upkeep is fixed due to the game engine limitation (I think) and cannot reflect monetary policies such as coin debasement that medieval rulers sometimes used to finance their army in a pinch. But I think we can devise a simple substitute mechanics to simulate that kind of thing and how it should affect the faction.

If it's indeed possible, then the professional units should be able to stay a bit longer than both feudal and mercenary types, in this order: mercenary - feudal - professional. Professional soldiers should ideally be gradually used more by a more centralised state that can afford (abuse, if you will) financing army with debt. Wasn't the demise of the Templars caused partly by a French king unable to pay his debt? Philip IV, I believe.

[Lifthrasir]

Philippe IV wasn't the only one. Actually, Templars were the 1st bank for quite a lot of European rulers during the 13th century. I think that even the Pope had interest owed at some stage

[officialdeo]

Philippe IV wasn't the only one. Actually, Templars were the 1st bank for quite a lot of European rulers during the 13th century. I think that even the Pope had interest owed at some stage

And after that, the Italian bankers, culminating in the Medici family. Honestly, it would be fantastic if we can simulate these Mediterranean republics as essential bankers for feudal lords, creating a more integrated global economy. Perhaps far in the future, I don't even know if the community would welcome such playstyle.

[Lifthrasir]

There is a banking submod somewhere allowing the player to borrow monney. If unable to pay back, then there are some bad consequences with merchants if I remember correctly.

[officialdeo]

There is a banking submod somewhere allowing the player to borrow monney. If unable to pay back, then there are some bad consequences with merchants if I remember correctly.

Interesting. It sounds like my cup of tea since, in many of my games, I am the banker lol.

Getting back on topic, I've been meaning to ask the team this question. How do you guys ideally play the game after 50 to 100 turns into the game? Or intend us to play. The economy, in particular, do you guys often come across the same situation that I referred to in the original post?