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

A Different Approach to Supply Line Upkeep Increase

GroskrvvGroskrvv Registered Users Posts: 41
I have been considering the supply line upkeep increase that is implemented as a difficulty modifier in the Warhammer campaigns. While the idea that supply lines stretching gives rise to increases in upkeep is logical, this should not be due to number of armies fielded, rather the distance to provinces belonging to your faction.

For example, playing as Lothern, if you intend to invade an offshore settlement, your upkeep should increase significantly, doubling or tripling, and your forces face attrition, but closer you get to your capital your upkeep should decrease, going down to near zero when garrisoned. And so the scheme is, closer you are to one of your settlements, the lower your upkeep, farther away you are, the higher your upkeep. Not only would this make it more challenging to expand your territory, thus increasing your late-game playability, but it would be more authentic and immersive then just a blunt increase in your upkeep. And, this way, garrisoning an army would be like disbanding your men, as is the case in a normal army. Think about it, every time we recruit a regiment, we are not paying the initial recruitment fee so that men can assemble in a rally point, but most likely for their gear and training and tents etc., so when you garrison your army, it would still appear as though your men are assembled, but they wouldn't be walking around in arms all day long without any danger, they would meddle with the population, making their own living in the meanwhile. There might also be a garrison or disband mode that allows you to reassemble your army without additional cost except for upkeep, if the former idea does not seem too authentic to you.

What do you think?

Comments

  • JadawinKhanidiJadawinKhanidi Registered Users Posts: 1,177
    Would make defense ridiculously overpowered (cheap or almost free massive stacks sitting in your own cities) while punishing offense. So no.

    Also easily abusable. Have 20 defensive stacks, go on offense with 3. If you lose some battles, you have immediate backups, just move up one of those defensive armies.

    Never saw a problem with the upkeep mechanic. If anything, it's still way too easy to field a huge number of pure elite stacks in late game. A really well balanced campaign would make it so that at every stage of the campaign, you can just barely afford enough units to progress. But this would require an almost impossible balancing effort, with so many so different factions on the map.
  • SternguardShootyfaceSternguardShootyface Registered Users Posts: 234
    I do think the current system encourages doom stacks, as having more weaker armies is less cost effective.

    I'd like to see more unit variety in the later game.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 25,941
    I think supply lines should be dependent on units individually, not on whole armies. As in you get 100 supply and your units will require varying amounts of it or increase in cost.

  • GroskrvvGroskrvv Registered Users Posts: 41
    I gave two different options, reducing unit upkeep could be based on a disband mod, where the stack disappears until called upon (it might, say, take three turns for the disbanded army to reassemble thus solving the problem you raised). Second thing is offshore offense is a really difficult thing in any campaign or army setting, and it is never properly represented in total war games, you can't just pull out a stack and send them two thousand miles away without severe logistical problems, and these problems are what make the game competitive and enjoyable.

    Pure elite stacks are the most ridiculous issue in this game. Every time Naggarond sends me an army with 8 Black Guard regiments, I just want to close the game, not that it is hard to counter them or beat them, it just looks absurdly imbalanced reducing any immersion one has in the game. Warhammer army books differentiate units into three categories: Core, Special; Rare. There should be caps, other than financing, regarding non-core units. An example would be, for every two regiments of Phoenix Guard, there must be one sanctuary of Asuryan, or something on that line.
  • JadawinKhanidiJadawinKhanidi Registered Users Posts: 1,177
    Groskrvv said:

    Pure elite stacks are the most ridiculous issue in this game. Every time Naggarond sends me an army with 8 Black Guard regiments, I just want to close the game, not that it is hard to counter them or beat them, it just looks absurdly imbalanced reducing any immersion one has in the game. Warhammer army books differentiate units into three categories: Core, Special; Rare. There should be caps, other than financing, regarding non-core units.

    Completely agree with that. There should be a system in campaign that has a similar effect on army composition that unit cost has in multiplayer matches.

    Easy way to do it would be to massively scale up the cost of a unit, or unit class, if there are more than x of this unit type in the same army. Say up to 5 archer-type units cost normal upkeep, going to 6 raises upkeep for each by 10%, then 25% etc so that having silly 19 LSG armies would be extremely inefficient. And in the case of expensive units like dragons, having 10 dragons in one army would make it cost like 50k upkeep.

    Has nothing to do with the supply lines feature, though. I still like how it limits the number of armies. People who like army spam can always mod it.
Sign In or Register to comment.