possible alternatives that would make occupation of the whole map work

Sky_sweeper

Alright -before I get assaulted by people saying this is just another thread against the occupation blog, it isn't. I was reading some posts in the blog thread and came up with an idea I feel is both more thematic to the warhammer world and it's cultures, and also provides good reasons to allow for whole world occupation. The problem is it would require quite a bit of programming I feel. But, I still thought it was interesting enough myself to post as a new discussion, and also to allow people to post their own ideas of how things could work differently.


Have Orcs take holds, and take human territories - but instead of using the settlement location for the region conquered, you create a "nomadic camp" as it were that has tents and palisades and stuff, and every turn it moves around randomly - you could also directly control it if you want, but it cannot go outside the borders of the region it commands. The camp itself would work as a settlement, building up structures and tents and stuff. Only thing I can think that would need to be semi perminent would be the region capitals, but those could be "forts" - or more fortified camps that don't migrate around - so essentially a settlement.

Have vampires create crypts from the dwarfen karaks. musty halls underground for miles? Perfect catacombs. In fact, the more elite undead units could be limited to only come from these locations, thus giving value to sending campaigns into the mountains to take them beyond simple money and resources.

Humans could have a system similar to how Empire: Total War worked - where when they take a settlement of a province, they get to pick a specialty for it (Magic, Piety, Heresy) and that then allows them to be able to recruit the proper agent associated with the specialty (mage/wizards, warrior priests, witch hunters). For the province, if they have more than one of the same specialty selected for the settlements, it provides a recruit rank bonus. So if all three settlements have selected the piety specialty, they can recruit rank 3 warrior priests right off the bat, as an example.

Dwarfs could create expeditionary outposts, or trade outposts/ports, from human settlements. Also, they could have the option build an "extension to the underway". When they do this, they would be able to move units through the underway towards the surface settlement much faster than if they did it by the surface, ignoring terrain restrictions along the way. Given their lack of cavalry and being an all around slow race, this would be a good tactic for helping expansion happen in a reasonably paced way, allowing for units to move out to the borders of their empire quicker, but be slow walking up on land to take new territory.

That was my brainstorm anyway. curious to hear what others think/what other ideas come up.

ranknfile#2065

Many people feel they have ideas which can improve the game, they are called "modders." However most of their mods - like about 95 % of them - I don't use. I like the remaining 5% or so enough to incorporate them into my TW gameplay. Also I'll make a few minor mods to tweek one thing or another myself.

However I also will play some TW games vanilla or with very few mods. Aoc I play only with my low battle camera mod for example. I will see how Warhammer is before deciding to use mods ... before passing judgment on an un-played game.

People are free to rant about how CA is making a mistake, but they typically are proven wrong.

We'll see won't we?

Sky_sweeper

ranknfile said:

Many people feel they have ideas which can improve the game, they are called "modders." However most of their mods - like about 95 % of them - I don't use. I like the remaining 5% or so enough to incorporate them into my TW gameplay. Also I'll make a few minor mods to tweek one thing or another myself.

However I also will play some TW games vanilla or with very few mods. Aoc I play only with my low battle camera mod for example. I will see how Warhammer is before deciding to use mods ... before passing judgment on an un-played game.

People are free to rant about how CA is making a mistake, but they typically are proven wrong.

We'll see won't we?

... I said that this thread was about alternative ideas. Not fighting/arguing about the decision that has been made. Did you even read the post?

Setrus#7519

Sky_Sweeper said:

ranknfile said:

Many people feel they have ideas which can improve the game, they are called "modders." However most of their mods - like about 95 % of them - I don't use. I like the remaining 5% or so enough to incorporate them into my TW gameplay. Also I'll make a few minor mods to tweek one thing or another myself.

However I also will play some TW games vanilla or with very few mods. Aoc I play only with my low battle camera mod for example. I will see how Warhammer is before deciding to use mods ... before passing judgment on an un-played game.

People are free to rant about how CA is making a mistake, but they typically are proven wrong.

We'll see won't we?

... I said that this thread was about alternative ideas. Not fighting/arguing about the decision that has been made. Did you even read the post?

A similar thing was asked by the OP in the positive thread. People are however allowed to voice disagreement despite such requests.

Sky_sweeper

Setrus said:

Sky_Sweeper said:

ranknfile said:

Many people feel they have ideas which can improve the game, they are called "modders." However most of their mods - like about 95 % of them - I don't use. I like the remaining 5% or so enough to incorporate them into my TW gameplay. Also I'll make a few minor mods to tweek one thing or another myself.

However I also will play some TW games vanilla or with very few mods. Aoc I play only with my low battle camera mod for example. I will see how Warhammer is before deciding to use mods ... before passing judgment on an un-played game.

People are free to rant about how CA is making a mistake, but they typically are proven wrong.

We'll see won't we?

... I said that this thread was about alternative ideas. Not fighting/arguing about the decision that has been made. Did you even read the post?

A similar thing was asked by the OP in the positive thread. People are however allowed to voice disagreement despite such requests.

it's more I don't want the thread to be closed due to off-topic discussion before people have a chance to give their own ideas.

SlipknotMaggot

I created a topic for a alternate concept yesterday but would be too much to post here mainly it plays with different costs for every race and province to settle. The price is produced by three factors: former owners of the province, geography and settlers. The system connects lore with the sandbox atmosphere and works against a late game steamroll. If interested read my thread or if you want to i can repost it here

Sky_sweeper

Varintraz said:

I created a topic for a alternate concept yesterday but would be too much to post here mainly it plays with different costs for every race and province to settle. The price is produced by three factors: former owners of the province, geography and settlers. The system connects lore with the sandbox atmosphere and works against a late game steamroll. If interested read my thread or if you want to i can repost it here

Go ahead link it! Sounds like an interesting suggestion.

SlipknotMaggot

Here is my idea:
Lorewise everyone could easily burn down an orc camp and build a little city of his faction in the province ( it could be generic to decrease development costs). But the Devs are right: just occupying everything brings a boring lategame as it is too easy to just control every province and settle there. They fixed it with restrictions and i don't like this idea as it kills the sandbox.
I think every faction should be able to conquer every other factions provinces (not citys keep in mind).
You just have to increase the cost of controlling a province. I even want to connect it to the lore at this point.

In my idea every province has a little text which can be opened by clicking on a little icon at the name of the provinces city. The text informs you about the costs of capturing this sattlement.
The Cost is individual for every single sattlement and is different for every race who wants to control it, can be easily generated by automatic computer

and is built by 3 factors:
Former Owner
Geography
Settler number

1. former Owner
lorewise it is easy to get control over a region, which was settled by similar factions and races (kind of converting the nemesis stuff to my system as it is very lorefriendly) cause they dont have to build a complete new town, they just live in the town of the former owner.
Example:
Orcs win the battle against a dwarf karak --> reduced cost to settle the province
Empire wins battle against dwarf karak --> higher cost as they need to build a new town
Cause humans don't live in karaks

2. Geography
the geography of a province is very important as there are climate preferences for every faction and even countries, where nobody can easily live. Supporting lore, too.
Example:
Lizardmen wants to take control over a town in a warm zone --> reduced cost
Lizardmen want to settle in Norsca (cold) --> higher costs
Lizardmen wants to settle in mild zones (empire) --> medium costs
Dwarves want to settle in mountain --> lower costs

3. Settler Number
Okay here is the in my eyes best part of my idea. You need a a high population to inhabit a new country cause in warhammer you got different races who do not live together. After winning a siege battle you kill the whole population or exile them. But now you need people to live in the new province. Every turn you do not occupy/ settle, the price of the next settlement is reduced (maximum of 5) to present the slowly growing population
Example:
0 turn without settlement --> higher costs
2 turns without settlement --> medium costs
5 turns without settlement --> lower costs

The total price will be a combination out of alle the 3 factors and so be unique for every race, province and even time. This concept is very correct to lore, reduces the "i just occupy everything idea" ( as it will be very expensive, goal would be 3 plunderings and 1 settlement in this cycle), and motivates the player to do raiding for more gold and allows him to settle where he wants. You want a dwarfen outpost in the desert of khemri? Okay you can but it is hard for you to settle in the desert (lore) so it will cost you a lot of resources (very expensive).

Finally let me expain how it could work with a big example (my favorites, the lizardmen)
Every faction has preferences shown at the campaign race select screen which determine your future costs for different settlements/provinces:
Lizardmen:
Former Owner:
Lower costs: lizardmen, tomb kings (just suggestion hey have pyramids like lizards)
Higher costs: every other race

Geography:
Lower Costs: hot climate, jungle
Medium Costs: mild climate, grassland, deserts
Higher Costs: cold climate, mountains, snow

Settler Number: depends on turns without occupation no difference from race to race.

Real game example: the lizardmen army wants an outpost in the old world to expand from lustria. They win a siege battle against a bretonnian city. The former owner is bretonnia so high costs in this factor. The climate is something like france so mild grassland --> medium costs. But they settled the last round in lustria so they have less settlers and resources to inhabit the new province --> high costs. All in all the province would be a high cost province and the lizards would have to spend a ton of money --> you can settle everywhere it makes lorewise sense but it is hard for the lizards and after the settlement they have to raid some nearby bretonnian cities to balance their former investment --> brings new gameplay


Kind of a text wall like i said

thesniperdevil

My Idea: Outposts.

The way I see it, once you conquer an area, an area no sane person of your race would want to live because its so crap, you would probably want to leave some form of military outpost manned at the location, simply to deny its value to others, or as a base of operations to impose your strength in that area.
(foreign legion did this right?)

This is what we need.

Every province has a capital. If you conquer the capital of a province your race would not want to settle - you should be able to Build an outpost on it- minor settlements can not be occupied, however they can be raised, sacked or left to its own devices.

The outpost is a gimped settlement that lets you build specific structures. Walls, towers & gates - and that's it- perhaps at great cost it can be upgraded to a keep. it should also have a high garrison amount.

If you have the outpost in an otherwise raised province, it should have a really high upkeep cost (it needs all the support to be maintained.

If you decide to have this outpost in a province, but let another race own the minor settlements- then you should have slightly lower upkeep costs for the outpost- taken as some form of tribute/ tax from the other settlements.

With decent balance you could even make it so that you HAVE to sack settlements to afford the upkeep of these important keeps in high numbers.

Outposts/ keeps could cause massive diplomatic penalties with factions who own the other towns in that province.

This would offer enough depth to me.
Do I want to be a subjugating overlord who has lots of 'satrapies' hating my guts because my outpost garrisons are stunting their development?
Do I want to raise everything but maintain my military might in the area- at great cost to my economy?
Do I only build keeps in areas I deem strategically vital & worth the risk of the diplomatic/ economic penalties it will provide.
Or I could play the game as CA currently have planned - with the pros & cons outlined in the dev blog.

I also think it would be pretty fun the other way around- having a weak presence in an area and requiring to overthrow my subjugators to allow me to found a capital and give me an anchor of power in the geographic area.

In all honesty- I cant see a flaw in this idea... it allows us to paint the map.. but at a massive cost- which stops the snow-ball end game drudge... But also keeps that level of nuance to expansion which CA hope to achieve.

GRAY_HAT

@thesniperdevil

That's my take on it, just small garrisons that cost a ton of money and no real build can be done but will at least cover "paint the map" and "tactical occupation"

Thanquol

Have a system were if a location is conquered that is outside your currently assigned area of conquest then the current city in the location is razed and replaced by a basic outpost style fort with wooden walls. They should be low cost but also produce little income (perhaps give a bonus to this if a resourse is located nearby) they should also have a low default garrison. This would allow poeple to expand were they wish, whilst making other factions have to fight to regain potentialy important locations they have lost. The player would have to decide if they wanted to dedicate time and resources to securing/garrisoning these locations.

Fredrin#9269

thesniperdevil said:

My Idea: Outposts.

The way I see it, once you conquer an area, an area no sane person of your race would want to live because its so crap, you would probably want to leave some form of military outpost manned at the location, simply to deny its value to others, or as a base of operations to impose your strength in that area.
(foreign legion did this right?)

This is what we need.

Every province has a capital. If you conquer the capital of a province your race would not want to settle - you should be able to Build an outpost on it- minor settlements however can either be razed or left as raid fodder.

The outpost is a gimped settlement that lets you build specific structures. Walls, towers & gates - and that's it- perhaps at great cost it can be upgraded to a keep. it should also have a high garrison amount.

If you have the outpost in an otherwise raised province, it should have a really high upkeep cost (it needs all the support to be maintained.

If you decide to have this outpost in a province, but let another race own the minor settlements- then you should have slightly lower upkeep costs for the outpost- taken as some form of tribute/ tax from the other settlements.
Outposts cause massive diplomatic penalties with factions who own the other towns in that province.

This would offer enough depth to me.
Do I want to be a subjugating overlord who has lots of 'satrapies' hating my guts because my outpost garrisons are stunting their development?
Do I want to raise everything but maintain my military might in the area- at great cost to my economy?
Do I only build keeps in areas I deem strategically vital & worth the risk of the diplomatic/ economic penalties it will provide.
Or I could play the game as CA currently have planned - with the pros & cons outlined in the dev blog.

I also think it would be pretty fun the other way around- having a weak presence in an area and requiring to overthrow my subjugators to allow me to found a capital and give me an anchor of power in the geographic area.

In all honesty- I cant see a flaw in this idea... it allows us to paint the map.. but at a massive cost- which stops the snow-ball end game drudge... But also keeps that level of nuance to expansion which CA hope to achieve.

Top rate suggestion, Sniper. I hope CA take a close look at this!

ribbb

What you suggested there is close to exact same thing I was thinking in previous threads. Except I didnt think there was need for actual buildings in Greenskin "nomadic camp" therefore making it essentially what raiding camps are now.

As far as dwarfs and VC. I agree completely what you said there. Maybe I didnt make my self clear because I remember arguing with you several times about this exact thing. Maybe it was the not needing buildings thing that was throwing you off. But that was only for greenskins.

I didnt play Empire total war so I didnt quite understand Empire part.

I thought that the alternative ways of recruiting units could be a good way to still be able to take the whole map.
Obviously for greenskins the way they (in my opinion) take the map is not for everybody because its a very horde like way of expansion.

Fact that Greenskins work like horde half the time does not necessarily mean that all the other races are going to work like that. Even though it is definitive possibility. We will see once we know all the campaign map mechanics for every race.

If you ask me there is still hope for those that want to paint the map. Unless you are greenskins. But then again I dont know if there are people out there that want to color the map and play greenskins because its like playing chaos and wanting to color the map.

I really dont understand why dwarfs are bound by province restrictions though. If they want to make their empire bigger cant they just dig under their neighbor provinces and expand that way.

I think they could make dwarf expansion work like that if they just made it cost money to expand under other provinces. Then this would give you additional building slots and overall would work like a new settlement. This would lead to dwarfs expanding with money which could be interesting. Would be the only race that does not necessarily attack anyone to expand everywhere. It would also make razing a settlement feel like you are occupying it because you would raid the settlement then use that money to expand your underground empire into that province.

Maybe add some indication like watchtowers that are above ground so map does not become so boring if its razed.

bruunv

id imagine you would have to make all the graphics and interaction touch-points from scratch for the new culture specific cities. Now the holds have 3 versions: Orc-Dwarf-Razed.

If you intend to add Breton, Vampire, Empire, Kizelev, border prince, estalia etc and possibly the razed versions of each.. For each and every (40?) town, its a hellovalot of work.
Especially as i kinda doubt the game comes with the graphic tools and ready models that need just a bit fixing here and there to fully work.

Sky_sweeper

grayhat said:

@thesniperdevil

That's my take on it, just small garrisons that cost a ton of money and no real build can be done but will at least cover "paint the map" and "tactical occupation"

But what would anyone take that Option? Isn't that just the same as razing but being even more expensive? You said yourself no benefit or buildings could be built.

Setrus#7519

Sky_Sweeper said:

But what would anyone take that Option? Isn't that just the same as razing but being even more expensive? You said yourself no benefit or buildings could be built.

Oh god, the sweet irony...

thesniperdevil

ikki said:

id imagine you would have to make all the graphics and interaction touch-points from scratch for the new culture specific cities. Now the holds have 3 versions: Orc-Dwarf-Razed.

If you intend to add Breton, Vampire, Empire, Kizelev, border prince, estalia etc and possibly the razed versions of each.. For each and every (40?) town, its a hellovalot of work.

Yeah, this is why I think an outpost system may be more effective- a much more simple implementation

Sky_Sweeper said:

But what would anyone take that Option? Isn't that just the same as razing but being even more expensive? You said yourself no benefit or buildings could be built.

In traditional total wars, your empire gains momentum as you conquer new land. Each new province adds to your economic might, thus increasing your ability to produce more military units which are then more effective at getting you more territory. It's a snowball effect that causes the end game to be less fun because the challenge is no longer there.

CA are trying to correct this- in previous games it was civil wars, but in Warhammer they hope to achieve this by limiting the number of territories your faction can use as part of your economic base.

The current implementation proposed by CA might achieve this- but at a cost of really limiting your options; and the interactions between different races.

By proposing an outpost that has economic and diplomatic repercussions the hope is that you could still go out and use a province for its military strategic value- but still avoid the snowball which seems to be behind a lot of CA's design decisions recently.

neverending#5226

Sky_Sweeper said:

grayhat said:

@thesniperdevil

That's my take on it, just small garrisons that cost a ton of money and no real build can be done but will at least cover "paint the map" and "tactical occupation"

But what would anyone take that Option? Isn't that just the same as razing but being even more expensive? You said yourself no benefit or buildings could be built.

The main benefit would be being able to use it as a defensive structure. Thing is, to keep with the lore as well, humans shouldn't be able to man and use dwarf defenses as effectively (if at all). Same goes lizardmen or beastmen trying to man dwarf defenses and embattlements. I can see why CA simply didn't want to allow this as it's a massive can of worms.

Whether they will ever admit this practical reality or not I'm not sure.

Twitchy

grayhat said:

@thesniperdevil

That's my take on it, just small garrisons that cost a ton of money and no real build can be done but will at least cover "paint the map" and "tactical occupation"

Maybe in those garrisons the only buildings you can make are extra defenses (cost would be higher then in a normal town)

Nawtypope

Twitchy said:

grayhat said:

@thesniperdevil

That's my take on it, just small garrisons that cost a ton of money and no real build can be done but will at least cover "paint the map" and "tactical occupation"

Maybe in those garrisons the only buildings you can make are extra defenses (cost would be higher then in a normal town)

This is the exact alternative I was thinking of. Haveing Outpost/forts could be a major drain on the economy at the benefit of defensive/strategic location. at the moment you have the option to sack and gain money or Raze the settlement. (and to be honest, why not do both, gaining money then erasing the threat? unless your green skins)

If we raze everything this will not prevent the steam roll effect because the AI will not have the funds to make a comeback while the player still has the same funds.

If we were given the choice to either sack or fortify (replacing with a fort or an outpost) there would be real strategic decisions. Do you expand while taking a major hit to your economy but neutralize the threat, or do you sack the settlement only to have to deal with the threats later?

Not only would this limit expanding too fast, but it would also promote sacking campaigns/raids.

Obviously the idea needs a little rounding out but I like this way better than just burning everything.

thesniperdevil

I know right?

Like I truly get the intent of CA's decision here - getting rid of the "painting your colour" but all they have currently done is change the paint brush.. from "occupy" to "raze".

With forts that provide diplomatic/ economic drawbacks you are adding so many more decisions for the player but still avoid the repetitive end game that most of us hate!

charlysparrow

I don't see what's wrong with the "painting your color". it opens all region for capture and leave more freedom. current state seems too rigid to me.

Anyway, I like the cost approach proposed by Varintraz but I would not make it a "cost to occupy" but rather a "cost to stay".

i.e: building in those regions is more expensive. ROI is poor. Recruitment is low. Replenishment is low.
maybe techs can research to take away those malus or minimize them (Endless Space style a bit)

by doing so you enable to capture but you make it less interesting. it's far better than just razing and sacking and wait for it come back to raze and sack again.

Sky_sweeper

ikki said:

id imagine you would have to make all the graphics and interaction touch-points from scratch for the new culture specific cities. Now the holds have 3 versions: Orc-Dwarf-Razed.

If you intend to add Breton, Vampire, Empire, Kizelev, border prince, estalia etc and possibly the razed versions of each.. For each and every (40?) town, its a hellovalot of work.
Especially as i kinda doubt the game comes with the graphic tools and ready models that need just a bit fixing here and there to fully work.

And as many have said - CA has the largest staff and biggest budget they've ever had now - so shouldn't we expect that extra effort to be put forth in more than simply the graphics department? Sure it would take more time - but it would make the experience so much richer and make the launching of a new branch of games start a lot stronger.

Shadowkire

I don't have problems with the occupation restriction, but I do have problems with how CA implemented it. To me it seems like they started off based on lore, then halfway in they stopped to balance the races. Here is my idea with the balance:

1) Vampire Counts can occupy anything, the lore supports it. They will be the go-to race if someone wants to rule every inch of the world.

2) Humans can occupy the Badlands, but not mountain holds. This gives Humans the ability to take ~80% of the map, good for people who want to rule the world, but have no intention of actually conquering every last region.

3) Greenskins become a quasi-horde. They can take dwarf holds and each of their armies has 2-4 slots for buildings. Some of these buildings are like the ones they can construct in their settlements, the rest give the army bonuses to morale, raidingCamp/looting/raiding income, Waaagh! meter increases, etc.. Players looking for a race that has a "base" but can function well abroad will like this.

4) Dwarfs can only take dwarf holds, but are able to unlock new building slots in these settlements by "digging deeper." This allows dwarfs to construct 50-100% more buildings in their holds. So even if they can't spread out as much as other races they get a whole lot more out of their regions than any other race could. Players who want to do a lot of diplomacy without making themselves too weak to handle late-game troubles, or who want to watch the world go by from a position of safety, will be looking here.

I know these ideas don't allow for the conquest of the whole map for everyone, but they do allow for varied playstyles and different situations in a game.

Sky_sweeper

Shadowkire said:

I don't have problems with the occupation restriction, but I do have problems with how CA implemented it. To me it seems like they started off based on lore, then halfway in they stopped to balance the races. Here is my idea with the balance:

1) Vampire Counts can occupy anything, the lore supports it. They will be the go-to race if someone wants to rule every inch of the world.

2) Humans can occupy the Badlands, but not mountain holds. This gives Humans the ability to take ~80% of the map, good for people who want to rule the world, but have no intention of actually conquering every last region.

3) Greenskins become a quasi-horde. They can take dwarf holds and each of their armies has 2-4 slots for buildings. Some of these buildings are like the ones they can construct in their settlements, the rest give the army bonuses to morale, raidingCamp/looting/raiding income, Waaagh! meter increases, etc.. Players looking for a race that has a "base" but can function well abroad will like this.

4) Dwarfs can only take dwarf holds, but are able to unlock new building slots in these settlements by "digging deeper." This allows dwarfs to construct 50-100% more buildings in their holds. So even if they can't spread out as much as other races they get a whole lot more out of their regions than any other race could. Players who want to do a lot of diplomacy without making themselves too weak to handle late-game troubles, or who want to watch the world go by from a position of safety, will be looking here.

I know these ideas don't allow for the conquest of the whole map for everyone, but they do allow for varied playstyles and different situations in a game.

I would still find that more acceptable because at least that would fit in with their whole idea of being more "in depth than spread out" with total war this time around. I know i'm biased towards dwarfs (really wanted my world conquest of dwarven architecture ) but I think your proposition is more understandable and I would accept that. Still like my idea of expedition posts and surface colonies building underway extensions, but thats my bias coming out. xD would be happy with all the ideas you put forth.