Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

[Suggestion] Villages

RazeAndBurnRazeAndBurn Posts: 82Registered Users
Introduce a concept of a village and overhaul the R2TW-onwards Province system:

Basic Structure:

- Province consists of 2-5 regions. A capital region can be defined by player. Mainly remains for edicts and demographics.
- Each region has a castle/city that can go full building path from a "small town" to "Huge City" like in the old TW games.
- Each region also has 1-4 villages.


Villages:

- Can't build any buildings.
- Only specialize on one resource.
- Can't have garrisons but a 1-2 units of peasant militia. *Peasant militia for more martial cultures may be more badass than usual.
- Don't have any defenses but a palisade without ramparts which can be torn down by ordinary units in a siege battle. *Palisade is not always present more placid cultures are less likely to have those.
- Can be attacked to be razed and sacked. Sacked village would be depopulated for a number of turns unable to run any production.

*Optional: Buy Supplies, Sack and Raze may be represented as different choices with different consequences for Chivalry or Dread. Buy Supplies forages the village without violence to gain Chivalry, Raze burns the village to the ground denying the land to the enemy for a long term even if you don't occupy the region.

*Optional: Add interactions of governors with Villages: travel to collect extra taxes, edict that this particular be repopulated by the next turn etc.

So what's the point you would ask?

- It makes the map more populated and dense.
- It emphasize on the raiding and skirmishing nature of medieval ages warfare.
- Loss of villages would affect the town's production/trade without besieging or sacking the town itself forcing the defending player to respond to such raids(ie to do skirmish).

If we'd be able to run a mobile force of just a couple units of cavalry without the need for a lord, it would be able to quickly raze and sack a couple of villages in a single turn. Small ambushes on the paths to said villages would be more frequent as there are more detachments operating on the strategical map. Overall it would make the game more interesting and fun at the expense of virtual peasants.

Same applies to Vikings' raids only difference is that it would take place along a coastline.

*Optionally: If food suply is introduced as a temporary resource required by an army such small parties would be able to quickly forage by sacking said villages. To counter such raiding parties, you'd need your own fast response detachments.

*Optionally: If the game has slavery, slaves may be obtained as a resource from such raids as well as sacking of regular towns.

Comments

  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Posts: 2,591Registered Users
    The idea of having a bunch of nearly defenseless villages being constantly sacked does not sound fun.
    ò_ó
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,235Registered Users
    I like the idea of villages, but I also agree with Warlocke that unless the idea is adjusted, it would only be tedious, as it ended up being in previous TW games.
    The good thing about the village idea (I called them provincial assets), was that they ddid indeed made maps look less sparse, and allowed armies to do something along the way to attacking castles. The problem ofcourse was that these things to do were either annoying when effective, or just ineffective.

    With that in mind I'd recommend changing the format to something like:

    -Follow the general format of Shogun2's use of villages: farms, specialties and even forts and unique buildings can be found in the form of villages. This way, they do not take up the regular building slots. They otherwise operate like 1-slot region settlements, allowing you to upgrade the farm or whatever for inreased benefit

    -Villages cannot be "attacked" by armies, but requires "pillaging", whereby the longer an army sits on one of these villages, the more economic damage it inflicts; hopping rapidly from one village to another grants things like reduced attrition (in winter) or upkeep, etc., but would hardly dent an enemy's economy or public order. This effectively makes attacking villages the land equivalent of blockading ports- they only work as long as the army stays there, which makes them liable for a counter attack

    -Villages cannot be damaged unless by agent sabotage

    -fighting battles over villages utilizes small town battle maps, kind of like the minor settlements in Rome2, where a few tents and houses can allow for some chokepointing.

    -Number can be fluid, there are a lot of English villages that CA can choose from all over the map that can be reasonably spaced out; maybe not enough to allow for rapid village-hopping, though

    -Placing your armies into your villages gives them boosts like reduced upkeep, faster replenishment, etc.

    -Agents can be deployed to villages for civil/ economic function; placing one into a farm for example might yield
    more Food, if the mechanic exists, while putting them into a church or sacred grove helps religion conversion rate

    The aim here is to promote positive rewards through player action, rather than inflict punishment, ie you have to constantly repair from raids. That was the biggest problem with villages in previous TW games, it just got annoying when enemy armies camped around your villages constantly attacking them, ruining your economy.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • SvithinatorSvithinator Junior Member Posts: 95Registered Users
    You are basicly describing Mount and Blade
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Posts: 2,386Registered Users
    @daelin4 good ideas - although I'd lean towards making villages entirely non-interactive for armies (only for building as a player or agent actions). They could have a radius to provide benefits to allied armies (and appear to one side of the battle map if a fight takes place within this radius), or have special effects if they're within the radius of an enemy in 'raid' stance. It would help fill up the map - I rather miss the way they were in ETW/NTW; even S2 was a step backwards - but without as you said the nuisance rebuilding.
  • Butterkeks93Butterkeks93 Posts: 36Registered Users
    You are basically describing ETW, except for the garrisons.

    It was a quite interesting mechanic, except for the fact that they were constantly pillaged by AI and you couldn't do anything against it. Being forced to fight dozens of unwinnable battles per turn doesn't sound fun (talking about the 2 unit garrisons here).
  • KrunchKrunch Junior Member Posts: 3,846Registered Users
    Shogun 2 had villages and other provincial resources on the map aswell, they just had no garrisons.
  • RazeAndBurnRazeAndBurn Posts: 82Registered Users

    You are basically describing ETW, except for the garrisons.

    It was a quite interesting mechanic, except for the fact that they were constantly pillaged by AI and you couldn't do anything against it. Being forced to fight dozens of unwinnable battles per turn doesn't sound fun (talking about the 2 unit garrisons here).

    Well if you're not into protecting these you can auto-resolve them. You'd have to use your own mobile skirmishing force to intercept such raids against you. The current dependace on Lords to lead armies may actually limit the amount of skirmishing detachments may be deployed.

    I understand that the old RTW and M2TW ai tendency to split armies into half a dozen detachments was frustrating(for many reasons) but this suggestion pursues specific goals. I played little R2TW, ATW and WTW but what I understood is that now there're only big decisive battles going on because of inability to field small detachments.

    It adds depth and second layer to the strategic gameplay. It adds a practical reason to have small and mobile forces apart from big armies. For factions like Vikings it may be the core of gameplay, instead of assembling a single big stack and engage in big battles and sieges, you'd be able to spread your forces to be able to pillage as many villages as possible and then runaway or reassemble to put a fight.

  • KregenKregen Member Posts: 484Registered Users

    You are basically describing ETW, except for the garrisons.

    It was a quite interesting mechanic, except for the fact that they were constantly pillaged by AI and you couldn't do anything against it. Being forced to fight dozens of unwinnable battles per turn doesn't sound fun (talking about the 2 unit garrisons here).

    Well if you're not into protecting these you can auto-resolve them. You'd have to use your own mobile skirmishing force to intercept such raids against you. The current dependace on Lords to lead armies may actually limit the amount of skirmishing detachments may be deployed.

    I understand that the old RTW and M2TW ai tendency to split armies into half a dozen detachments was frustrating(for many reasons) but this suggestion pursues specific goals. I played little R2TW, ATW and WTW but what I understood is that now there're only big decisive battles going on because of inability to field small detachments.

    It adds depth and second layer to the strategic gameplay. It adds a practical reason to have small and mobile forces apart from big armies. For factions like Vikings it may be the core of gameplay, instead of assembling a single big stack and engage in big battles and sieges, you'd be able to spread your forces to be able to pillage as many villages as possible and then runaway or reassemble to put a fight.

    That’s one of the things I miss from the older games, you could have small forces to raid unprotected settlements they where also good for intercepting raids against your own settlements and chaseing down remnants of defeated armies without having to send your main stack against them. Also one of the best things was if your mobile unit gained enough XP you might get a free general, the supposed captain in charge would get a promotion for doing a good job. There was no need to have a general or lord in a stack you could even move single units around as scouts on the campaign map.








  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,235Registered Users


    I understand that the old RTW and M2TW ai tendency to split armies into half a dozen detachments was frustrating(for many reasons) but this suggestion pursues specific goals. I played little R2TW, ATW and WTW but what I understood is that now there're only big decisive battles going on because of inability to field small detachments.

    Indeed, the only battle at all are either armies fighting armies or armies fighting garrisons.
    I think there are way to simulate skirmishes without either single unit detachments or single full stacks roaming around, though.


    It adds depth and second layer to the strategic gameplay. It adds a practical reason to have small and mobile forces apart from big armies. For factions like Vikings it may be the core of gameplay, instead of assembling a single big stack and engage in big battles and sieges, you'd be able to spread your forces to be able to pillage as many villages as possible and then runaway or reassemble to put a fight.

    Thing about TW though is once you got something like "this has X maximum slots" the automatic strategy for everyone is to fill it up as much as possible then romp around; the same problem with building slots. Tiny mini armies were either something the AI bumbled around with, or something the players used to shuffle troops around to armies or garrisons. The time to order a tiny army to attack a village in Shogun2 was barely worth the effort to perform the necessary mouseclicks, and you dealt with the AI's attacks only because you had to.

    If villages were not actually attackable however, you have a dimension where armies are forced to park themselves onto them to deprive the owners of its benefits, or deprive the enemy from taking resources from it. This then becames similar to blockading trade routes- you do not attack something per se, you just prevent the other side from gaining benefits. The more units you have on a village the greater the income penalty, and thus the greater incentive to attack (or defend).
    At the same time it also encourages decisive battles in places other than the settlements themselves: Cannae wasn't a city, it was some tiny village that happened to have strategic importance via sustaining armies. This wouldn't work if you could simply "attack" a village, because it deprives the dimension of pillaging the countryside, something that the Vikings were pretty infamous for.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,771Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Kregen said:

    You are basically describing ETW, except for the garrisons.

    It was a quite interesting mechanic, except for the fact that they were constantly pillaged by AI and you couldn't do anything against it. Being forced to fight dozens of unwinnable battles per turn doesn't sound fun (talking about the 2 unit garrisons here).

    Well if you're not into protecting these you can auto-resolve them. You'd have to use your own mobile skirmishing force to intercept such raids against you. The current dependace on Lords to lead armies may actually limit the amount of skirmishing detachments may be deployed.

    I understand that the old RTW and M2TW ai tendency to split armies into half a dozen detachments was frustrating(for many reasons) but this suggestion pursues specific goals. I played little R2TW, ATW and WTW but what I understood is that now there're only big decisive battles going on because of inability to field small detachments.

    It adds depth and second layer to the strategic gameplay. It adds a practical reason to have small and mobile forces apart from big armies. For factions like Vikings it may be the core of gameplay, instead of assembling a single big stack and engage in big battles and sieges, you'd be able to spread your forces to be able to pillage as many villages as possible and then runaway or reassemble to put a fight.

    That’s one of the things I miss from the older games, you could have small forces to raid unprotected settlements they where also good for intercepting raids against your own settlements and chaseing down remnants of defeated armies without having to send your main stack against them. Also one of the best things was if your mobile unit gained enough XP you might get a free general, the supposed captain in charge would get a promotion for doing a good job. There was no need to have a general or lord in a stack you could even move single units around as scouts on the campaign map.








    Agree.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
  • RazeAndBurnRazeAndBurn Posts: 82Registered Users
    Just to illustrate current state of things:


    A whole turn worth of travel expanse that has seen zero action for the past 30 turns.



    A vast expanse of nothing and a raiding Viking party that requires Emperor's personal attention who had to travel all the way from Meddenheim only to see the Vikings flee back into the sea.

    I'd rather have all these empty territories be filled with something worth marching armies through and less 20/20 stacks of raiders that don't even want to occupy my lands.
  • KregenKregen Member Posts: 484Registered Users
    Here is an idea why not have ranked commanders , first rank a few units 4or 5 maybe, then each advancement adds more unit cards. Medieval would be something like knight,Barron earl,duke and king. In other time periods appropriate titles would be used. Should two or more smaller stakes be united under a general of higher rank their unit card would disappear both they would be named as commander on the sub stack traits card. This would mean that large armies would be made up of a collection of smaller stacks that could be detached for smaller tasks. These sub commander could also have some kind of speciality trait which would advance automatically and would give buff boost in that speciality to the army they are in. Also some form of seniority system also auto managed would determine who advanced to a higher level, but it would also be possible for the player to override this if they chose. There may also be other things that need to be considered but these are the ones that I could think of at the moment.
  • RazeAndBurnRazeAndBurn Posts: 82Registered Users
    Kregen said:

    Here is an idea why not have ranked commanders , first rank a few units 4or 5 maybe, then each advancement adds more unit cards. Medieval would be something like knight,Barron earl,duke and king. In other time periods appropriate titles would be used.

    Well that's an idea for the whole other suggestion. You describe feudal system of vassalitet very well.
  • LestaTLestaT Senior Member Posts: 3,284Registered Users
    I dont mind having villages on the map for the visual but I wouldnt want to go back to ETW and Shogun 2 style where single enemy unit went on burning village spree.

  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,235Registered Users
    The idea of ranked characters is interesting, but i don't think limiting access to number of units will help. If anything it makes things worse for the AI, especially if advancement in rank requires some level of achievement like winning battles. You just end up with a lategame where you're steamrolling everyone because you killed the enemy's best character and all their new characters can only ever muster a total of five units.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • KregenKregen Member Posts: 484Registered Users
    daelin4 said:

    The idea of ranked characters is interesting, but i don't think limiting access to number of units will help. If anything it makes things worse for the AI, especially if advancement in rank requires some level of achievement like winning battles. You just end up with a lategame where you're steamrolling everyone because you killed the enemy's best character and all their new characters can only ever muster a total of five units.

    Well I can see what you mean but I did say that the player could override the promotion system and promote a favored unit if he so desired and there is nothing to stop you recruiting a full general unit in the usual way. This was ment as a way to have smaller units for taking care of small raider parties or making raids on enemy resources of your own. I must admit I have no idea if the AI can Handel it but then its only a suggestion at this point.
    LestaT said:

    I dont mind having villages on the map for the visual but I wouldnt want to go back to ETW and Shogun 2 style where single enemy unit went on burning village spree.

    Personally Ilike the idea of small settlement and raiding /defending them it adds a level of attrition to the way you remove your enemies ability to fight. I would even take it a little further and have a subdivision or terretory attached to the smaller settlement that would effectively become a part of your own empire if you decided to keep it instead just raiding it.
  • kinjokinjo Senior Member Posts: 1,610Registered Users
    I hated how ETW was a land grab, take Paris and France was basically destroyed.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,235Registered Users
    Kregen said:


    Well I can see what you mean but I did say that the player could override the promotion system and promote a favored unit if he so desired and there is nothing to stop you recruiting a full general unit in the usual way. This was ment as a way to have smaller units for taking care of small raider parties or making raids on enemy resources of your own. I must admit I have no idea if the AI can Handel it but then its only a suggestion at this point.

    But then no one would ever bother hiring a "minor" general if a regular general can be recruited. Not to mention agents can take the place of these little raiding parties. They sort of did in Shogun2, though the AI very rarely targeted your provincial assets- heck they were rare, period.

    Which brings me to another idea, only agents can directly attack such villages, whereas armies can just be parked on top to deny the benefits, as I suggested. Unlike army raiding, agent sabotage would require spending time and money to repair but does not require a unit to be parked on the village. The army, in turn, requires multiple turns to ramp up the denial of resources, but doesn't destroy the village.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • KregenKregen Member Posts: 484Registered Users
    daelin4 said:

    Kregen said:


    Well I can see what you mean but I did say that the player could override the promotion system and promote a favored unit if he so desired and there is nothing to stop you recruiting a full general unit in the usual way. This was ment as a way to have smaller units for taking care of small raider parties or making raids on enemy resources of your own. I must admit I have no idea if the AI can Handel it but then its only a suggestion at this point.

    But then no one would ever bother hiring a "minor" general if a regular general can be recruited. Not to mention agents can take the place of these little raiding parties. They sort of did in Shogun2, though the AI very rarely targeted your provincial assets- heck they were rare, period.

    Which brings me to another idea, only agents can directly attack such villages, whereas armies can just be parked on top to deny the benefits, as I suggested. Unlike army raiding, agent sabotage would require spending time and money to repair but does not require a unit to be parked on the village. The army, in turn, requires multiple turns to ramp up the denial of resources, but doesn't destroy the village.
    Well the way I see it working would be that as now you could only recruit a certain number of each level commander dependent on empire points, so you could only recruit a top level general if you meet the requirements to do so or to replace a general killed in action. Mean while the sub commanders would be earning traits within the army stack but can only advance to the next level if a position became available in the next level which would occur automatically based on seniority and xp, at this point the player could if he wished override this and promote another sub commander if they so wished, so you could not recruit unlimited generals.

    The small settlements would work the same way a provincial capital does on capture, you would get the option to sack the settlement destroying the resource building or it could be occupied in which case you would gain control and get the income of that settlement as long as you held control. The main problem with settlements in ETW was that you did not get enough options as to what to do with them. Ideally they would specialize in a resource and have the option to upgrade to small town with some form of defense walls and a small garrison that did not count in the unit stack count. Let’s suppose your capital gets captured you could move your capital to one of those small town where it would become a level 1 capital city. This would need to be a developed small town, so making it harder to win wars and encourage more tactical approach to the way you conduct your campaign in stead of the steam roller tactics. Also agents could still be used to sabotage and incite unrest. You would then have many more options.

    If you do not want this level of complexity that’s fine I just think it would be interesting and more fun, and for me more challenging .
  • RazeAndBurnRazeAndBurn Posts: 82Registered Users
    To argue to those who says that playing losing battles is hardly entertaining: I played a 50 turn campaign as dwarves in WTW this weekend and made a mistake of trying to conquer the wastelands. Two of my armies got agentblocked for ~6-8 turns straight and then four different factions(Top Knotz, Blue Moon Hobos, Red Fangs and Greenskins) proceeded to raid my settlements in the river valley that I had no hope of winning. And I had to manually play each raid trying to kill of as many Big'Uns and Squigs so that maybe I'll be able to beat them next time.

    To add insult to injury BMH and Red Fangs were small factions with only 2 settlements yet fielded 13+ stacks, and Greenskins were reduced to rank ~50 in terms of strength when the Ironhide came back with a 8/20 stack. ie none of them except Top Knotz provided any challenge in a fight yet were a great nuisance. Ironhide's stack managed to retreat twice in a single turn! which I believed was impossible - army should route if it has no movement points and retreats from battle.

    At least with my suggestion you'd be able to auto-resolve losing raids with no actual loss of capital except for temporary resource denial and be able to retaliate with a quickly assembled response team that doesn't have to be 10+ strong to be able to deal with minor factions' entire strength hitting you in the back.
  • KregenKregen Member Posts: 484Registered Users

    To argue to those who says that playing losing battles is hardly entertaining: I played a 50 turn campaign as dwarves in WTW this weekend and made a mistake of trying to conquer the wastelands. Two of my armies got agentblocked for ~6-8 turns straight and then four different factions(Top Knotz, Blue Moon Hobos, Red Fangs and Greenskins) proceeded to raid my settlements in the river valley that I had no hope of winning. And I had to manually play each raid trying to kill of as many Big'Uns and Squigs so that maybe I'll be able to beat them next time.

    To add insult to injury BMH and Red Fangs were small factions with only 2 settlements yet fielded 13+ stacks, and Greenskins were reduced to rank ~50 in terms of strength when the Ironhide came back with a 8/20 stack. ie none of them except Top Knotz provided any challenge in a fight yet were a great nuisance. Ironhide's stack managed to retreat twice in a single turn! which I believed was impossible - army should route if it has no movement points and retreats from battle.

    At least with my suggestion you'd be able to auto-resolve losing raids with no actual loss of capital except for temporary resource denial and be able to retaliate with a quickly assembled response team that doesn't have to be 10+ strong to be able to deal with minor factions' entire strength hitting you in the back.


    Well I could not comment on how it works in WTW but I'm sure that retreat twice in one turn is impossible for the player in a Historical TW. To be honest I find the way retreat works a bit bogus, after all choosing to retreat is not a loss or a route . So why cant I either choose the direction of retreat or mount a fighting retreat similar to Wellingtons retreat to the battlefield of Waterloo which was conducted under appalling conditions but allowed for the saving of most of his force in good order and the occupation of a battle field of his own choosing which was far better suited to the allies.
  • ShadowtwinzShadowtwinz Posts: 57Registered Users


    - Can't have garrisons but a 1-2 units of peasant militia. *Peasant militia for more martial cultures may be more badass than usual.
    - Don't have any defenses but a palisade without ramparts which can be torn down by ordinary units in a siege battle. *Palisade is not always present more placid cultures are less likely to have those.
    - Can be attacked to be razed and sacked. Sacked village would be depopulated for a number of turns unable to run any production.


    - It makes the map more populated and dense.
    - It emphasize on the raiding and skirmishing nature of medieval ages warfare.
    - Loss of villages would affect the town's production/trade without besieging or sacking the town itself forcing the defending player to respond to such raids(ie to do skirmish).
    s.

    I Agree, it would bring new game mechanic. Again, Raiding wouldnt be just "stance" but actualy a thing.

    Regarding village construction. You should be able to build a village in your region in between roads, either with general or through building section. Quantity would be depended on settlement population.

    And In general, all those stances edicts and general skills are unrealistic.

  • MattzoMattzo Member United KingdomPosts: 1,433Registered Users
    So, the actual map has a similar concept to this!
    "Everything in war is simple. But the simplest thing is difficult."
  • RazeAndBurnRazeAndBurn Posts: 82Registered Users
    Mattzo said:

    So, the actual map has a similar concept to this!

    God bless you for brining such good tidings!

    Well they basically say very similar things:

    Province capitals are still walled and have 6 building slots as well as garrisons. Minor settlements do not. They will have no walls and either one or two building slots . The available building types for each settlement will be pre-defined and based on the characteristics of the land around it. That could be a farm, or an iron mine, or an abbey.

    This means that the vast majority of the buildings that give you food and money exist outside the safety of the major settlements walls. This means that you will have to think about how you keep them protected but it also opens up a new set of offensive opportunities. You could for instance sack the farm provinces of an opponent to trigger a food shortage or occupy their mines to cut off income and cripple their ability to maintain a strong army. Attacking the minor settlements in a province can also be a good way to force a fight by pushing a stubborn opponent to step out from strong defences to protect their interests.


    Now let's just hope that we can field smaller skirmishing forces and that the distances between these smaller settlements aren't as spacious and empty as in previous TW titles.
  • ShadowtwinzShadowtwinz Posts: 57Registered Users
    unwalled settlements provides 0 tactical gameplay. Atleast that was in Attila and rome.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,235Registered Users
    I found it unremarkable, though not necessarily useless.

    The huts and tents SOMETIMES gave a level of tactical variety, but since your garrisons are often paltry composition it most often didn't matter what you did hiding between the streets. There was simply not a lot of ways the defending side can do in the face of a large invasion force, short of autoresolve.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
Sign In or Register to comment.