03-08-2002 20:16									#1
	Non Permament Armies Remove this text

Last night on the chat, I was racking my brain to get away for non permament armies to be usefull and not a hassal, mabey even 'fun'. Here is what I came up with.

What I want: A non-permament army 'solution'

Why: Peasants need to work their fields, millers need to mill, burghers need to use the grill. When these people are drafted, things can go awry. Fields go unworked, families can starve, hired-hands can be lazy or steal. Thus, when these conscripts stay away for extended periods of time, bad things can happen to their home province.

Solution: Disband conscript units when not in use. People go home, do their work, no unit upkeep is required and everyone is happy.
Problem: Too much MM in disbanding and rebuilding units when needed.

Alternative: Conscripted units will have a unit 'rest' option. It needs a better name, but it'll suffice for now. This option lets the soldiers go home and attend to their affairs, thus returning them to the pop and eliminates the penalties for conscripts. Units at 'rest' require no upkeep, and thus saves you money. All the unit is then is a ghost, a place holder. To call the men to arms again, all you need to do is awake the unit. This will cost a minimal fee and at least a turn for all conscripts to be assembled. More if they are further away. Since 'resting' units are ghosts, they can be moved anywhere you want for the army to reassemble.

The extra benifits and drawbacks can be strung out later. I just want to present something I think might work. Please comment.

Last edited by JMarks on 03-08-2002 at 20:23

	04-08-2002 13:54									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Well as for a name we could always call it the reserves.

A society based on its militancy slider may maintain x units in the reserves. After the conclusion of any war the player is asked what units perhaps he would like to be placed in the reserves

You could assign a goverment point cost to keeping more units that your slider bar for miltary indicates is comfortable for your society active in times of peace making the reserves during interwar periods a tempting place to place your combat power.

	04-08-2002 16:49									#3
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I don't know if there is any way of doing it painlessly. Mothballing fleets in SE IV is a major micromanagement hassle, even if it saves a lot of money. I end up not doing it, feeling a guilty for playing suboptimally the whole time

	04-08-2002 22:14									#4
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Nosforontu Well as for a name we could always call it the reserves. A society based on its militancy slider may maintain x units in the reserves. After the conclusion of any war the player is asked what units perhaps he would like to be placed in the reserves You could assign a goverment point cost to keeping more units that your slider bar for miltary indicates is comfortable for your society active in times of peace making the reserves during interwar periods a tempting place to place your combat power.

As for the name, reserves sounds a tad too modern, but on the right track As far as MM, we could always make it easier with well planned graphs that give all the reserve info. You can see where you have them (or have them highlighted on the map) and select as many as you want to reserve or un-reserve. Just an idea

	05-08-2002 02:56									#5
	Got spare money?

What about raising "for the duration" forces basically peasant levies and militia units. Make them cheaper than regular units and less likely to gain levels if experience is put into the modal.

However at the beginning of every turn unless your diplomatic rating with your neighbors indicates hostilities soon, or you are at war or the nihlog are either in your provinces or next to your provinces these levies automaticly begin disbanding each turn?

	05-08-2002 03:05									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Nos,

thats an idea, but not what I'm going for. Mabey for the local levies of a province (who don't leave it), but I'm talking about an actual army that marches and has to be payed. As opposed to the local peasant levies, or the nobles who already have an income (and some retainters that join them).

	05-08-2002 06:16									#7
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Ok I think the best answer at least for the computer version would be for a readiness menu which you can set the percentage of your troops to active versus inactive status. Make sure from the screen you could set different readiness levels based on provinces, and unit types etc.

The higher the readiness factor the closer the unit is to its normal combat stats, but is more expesive to maintain and it does hinder you because those guys are not performing various industrial and economic jobs for you.

What would be needed would be a basic chart detailing penalites of keeping your units at 20% readiness as opposed to 80% for instance (I would suggest making it fairly simple say 10-20 point blocks on the breakdown).

	05-08-2002 07:11									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I definitely agree that there should not be "standing armies," depending on what you mean by the term.

Armies should be VERY EXPENSIVE to maintain.

Armies composed of peasants and nobles (who act in those capacities) running around the entire year should not exist. During the planting season, armies should go back to their fields; there should be some severe domestic reprecussions if otherwise (starvation, rebellions, and so forth).

However, the same should not be true for mercenaries. If you look at the 100 Years War, "free companies," for extended periods of time, continually wreaked havoc in France. But, this should be very expensive.
________

quote: This will cost a minimal fee

IMO, the cost should be comparable to the cost to create units (both of which should be far less than the cost to maintain units). As far as I can see, there is no real distinction between the two orders.

	05-08-2002 07:27									#9
	Suffering from ads?

The reason I had the reduced fee for remaking 'rested' units is the fact you already have all the equipment, etc. So the fee will be for hiring the people and getting their arses back into 'uniform'.

Which brings another idea to mind. Depending on the ferocity of the battle (and whether or not you loose) there should be a re-equiping fee for lost equipment.

I would also like to see in later models nobles acting on their own, much like those free companies. They cost you nothing, but they take their own income and wage their own wars, plundering and pillaging to their best interests.

Nobles really should have a mind of their own, at least at first.

	05-08-2002 07:55									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: The reason I had the reduced fee for remaking 'rested' units is the fact you already have all the equipment, etc. So the fee will be for hiring the people and getting their arses back into 'uniform'.

I don't know if kings provided for their soldiers' equipment at the time. Certainly not for nobles...

Of course, any sort of artillery/siege works would be an exception, but then again, the costs manning those should be far smaller than the costs to build them, which the costs should reflect.

quote: I would also like to see in later models nobles acting on their own, much like those free companies.

Yep, that happened too. Nobles were part of the free companies. But I think both nobles and peasants who participated in these organizations would be considered mercenaries...

	05-08-2002 08:12									#11
	Got spare money?

Actually I'd like to see a distinction (mabey in later models) of free companies and mercenaries.

The difference? Mercenaries are often times out of your realm hired out. They are payed out of your purse (and plunder gains) for a job. They are not nobles.

Free companies are comprised of your nobles (and nobles joining your cause ) and their retainers who join a war for their own sake. They go for their own profit and require no money from you (unless you want them to do something specific). But they usually do what they want, and do for their own interests.

	05-08-2002 08:17									#12
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Well, if free companies are in your service, you probably want them to do something specifically, and hence get funding...

I don't know how the model would work otherwise... Having these companies do whatever they want seems rather difficult since that would drastically increase the complexity of the game...

	05-08-2002 08:40									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Well, if free companies are in your service, you probably want them to do something specifically, and hence get funding... I don't know how the model would work otherwise... Having these companies do whatever they want seems rather difficult since that would drastically increase the complexity of the game...

Thats why I said mabey in later models Still, if the AI is good, just have them act as allies under your banner. If you NEED them to do something you pay them, otherwise they'll go on their own to no expense to you, and to your benifit when they conquer a province.

But currently, such companies can be represented by mercs and cavalry.

	05-08-2002 18:31									#14
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Thats why I said mabey in later models Still, if the AI is good, just have them act as allies under your banner.

What would their objectives be?

quote: If you NEED them to do something you pay them, otherwise they'll go on their own to no expense to you, and to your benifit when they conquer a province. But currently, such companies can be represented by mercs and cavalry.

If you don't fund them, it would not be a benefit if they conquer a province... Hell, free companies often became the vassals of people whose land they just took.

Free companies that don't follow your orders and aren't supplied by your money should be considered brigands/bandits.

	05-08-2002 19:03									#15
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ramo What would their objectives be?

Their mission? Took seek out gold and glory! Thats their mission.

quote: If you don't fund them, it would not be a benefit if they conquer a province... Hell, free companies often became the vassals of people whose land they just took. Free companies that don't follow your orders and aren't supplied by your money should be considered brigands/bandits.

While you are pretty much right, it'd be nice to mabey see the free companies have low loyalty ratings and thus easy to bribe when they conquer themselves a good portion of land. Or they marry with nobles in the area and become their vassals that way. Of course that'd be a bit complex for now, or ever mabey. I don't like the brigands idea largely because I'm seeing you slaughter your own nobles, which ain't good. Mabey if they're considered bandits (heck, why not call them free companies, that'll signify that they're largely nobles and retainers, but are kindav uner your flag) but don't attack you (unless they switch their loyalty). That might be interesting.

	05-08-2002 19:14									#16
	Suffering from ads?

You guys realize that if we do make these kinds of changes, it's a change occuring down at the root level of the game, with implications that touch nearly everything, yes?

Example of what I mean:

Currently, Candle'Bre enjoys a healthy surplus of population....meaning that each province has more than enough people to work the fields and draft a healthy number of them into military service. This is good from the perspective that it engages the player immediately. Gives you stuff to do (cos lets face it, while tending the fields may be a necessary evil, it's certainly not much fun from a game playing perspective)....MUCH more fun to go out and beat on the bad guys!

As your economy expands, you begin to feel the limits of population that bring on groovy strategic choices.

Thus, if we include an in-game notion that the troops in the army are needed back home to work the fields, then we MUST, by definition, dramatically scale back the total number of people in each province. This will mean fewer troops available for drafting, and will slow economic development to a crawl. Realistic?....absolutely! Fun....ehhhh.....*maybe*, but my guess is, it'd get old really fast.

Another potential problem there lies in the fact that in order to add that level of realism to the game, we'll need to firmly define what constitutes a "turn" in Candle'Bre. This adds all *sorts* of complications to the mix that are a nightmare to manage.

An example of this would be:
We know that Candle'Bre is a pretty small kingdom, but we have yet to establish exact dimensions in miles (or leagues, or whathaveyou). If we're going to use a specific turn time, then we'll need to establish a set size....so, let's say for the moment that CandleBre is somewhere around 700 miles long, on its east to west (its longest axis).

Further, let's say that an armored man can march about 10 miles a day (I honestly don't know how far, but having done a bit of marching in the SCA, while wearing 16-guage steel armor, I'll hazard a guess at ten miles a day....that would be ten *exhausting* miles tho!). So...in under three months, a troop of soldiers could go from one end of the kingdom to the other.

Based on that, let's set the turns to one week. This means that it'd take roughly 12 turns for a foot unit to march the width of the kingdom (and another 12 to march back, cos he's got to get back to harvest the fields). That's a lot of busy work for the player (shuffle the unit out to fight once or twice, then shuffle back in time for the harvest).

Added to this complication though, is the problem that all 4x games have with combining building stuff and warmongering stuff....namely, in the middle ages, it takes a hellish long time to build stuff. The Sagrada Familia, (what would be our game's equivalent of a cathedral) took something on the order of 80 years to complete. Now...if we've already established that our turns are to be expressed as 1 turn = 1 week, then we've got a wampum big problem on our hands, cos we're essentially telling the player "sorry, but it'll take you 4160 turns to finish that Cathedral you just started." OUCH! Nobody is gonna ever build infrastructure. (two real world examples of this problem can be seen in Civ3--start building a temple right off the bat in Civ3, at 4000bc, and note the date when you complete the building--and in EU, which is a fantastic game....very rich, detailed, and realistic, but suffers long periods of "nothing happening" cos it takes too long to build anything).

There are a variety of ways around the problem, but none of the methodologies used to deal with that paradox--which is pretty much inherent in the 4x genre--are the least bit grounded in reality.

IMO....this level of realism, while historically accurate, would add layers of MM for the player to contend with, and not do much to boost the game's fun factor.

Not naysaying the idea, just saying....convince me?

-=Vel=-
EDIT: Corrected phrase left out as far as the kingdom size goes...d'oh!

Last edited by Velociryx on 06-08-2002 at 02:31

	05-08-2002 19:22									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Their mission? Took seek out gold and glory! Thats their mission.

Yeah, but there have to be concrete routines for the AI if we have them.

quote: I don't like the brigands idea largely because I'm seeing you slaughter your own nobles, which ain't good.

I believe a "brigand" is simply another name (a more accurate one, I think) for a "bandit" (which the game model currently includes)...

I don't know of any connections with slaughtering nobles...

quote: Mabey if they're considered bandits (heck, why not call them free companies, that'll signify that they're largely nobles and retainers, but are kindav uner your flag) but don't attack you (unless they switch their loyalty). That might be interesting.

In the current model, banditry in a province is modelled in a reduction in province incomes. The current model also allows for the vassalization of these bandits to eliminate the banditry.

	05-08-2002 19:33									#18
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

OK Vel, I'll give it another go. I see where you're comming from, so basically I'll have to abstract it a bit. What if the problems at home occur much like war weariness in civ3? Granted, it will be bended to our purposes, like less crops, more crime and whatnot. Only for non-noble raised armies of course. Thus, if we abstract it, we can put in relatively arbitrary numbers and not have to deal with putting real measurements down, but still have this 'realistic' concept in there.

For instance, lets say you have an army of 4 non-noble units from a given prov. I'll say the 'war weariness' only kicks in at 5 non-noble units away from home per (individual) prov. Remember, these are completely arbitrary numbers and can be changed to better suit our wants. Anyway, the more units you have over that 5 unit limit from that prov starts to eat away at your province. At first just a little bit- barely noticable. But he more units, the more it can be seen and if you're not careful, you can easily have a famine even if the province is the most fertile in candle 'bre. You get the picture. Of course, the effects increase with time. Lets say you can have a large number of units over the 5 limit from one prov, but the effects in the prov don't start untill an arbitrary number of turns later, lets say, uh, five! or ten or 15 or whatever. Of course if war weariness is in full swing, simply sending the guys home won't erase it all, it'd only gradually go back.

Thats where the unit 'rest' or 'reserve' idea comes in. You can have those guys made up and accessable at the click of a button (or highlight a bunch of these sleeping units and activate all of them at once) instead of having to go through the whole screen or whatever we have for building new troops, and then moving them where need be. This way, you can have lots of troops for a small time, but always some troops all the time (assuming you can afford it!), but can always call those guys back up quickly and easily.

Does that work for you, or do I need to flail some more with my arms?

	05-08-2002 19:37									#19
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ramo I believe a "brigand" is simply another name (a more accurate one, I think) for a "bandit" (which the game model currently includes)... I don't know of any connections with slaughtering nobles... In the current model, banditry in a province is modelled in a reduction in province incomes. The current model also allows for the vassalization of these bandits to eliminate the banditry.

Ok, I need to reread what we currently have for brigands, because I completely forgot. I was assosiating them to brigands or bandits in another game where you have to kill them off. But if that were the case, then you would be killing off your free companies and thus nobles, at least if they start out in your province. So before I say anything more on this, I'd better go read that again.

	05-08-2002 19:47									#20
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Currently, Candle'Bre enjoys a healthy surplus of population....meaning that each province has more than enough people to work the fields and draft a healthy number of them into military service.

The nobility, the primary base of your military, should have only a limited population... They have to oversee their lands sometimes if they've gone out campaigning.

quote: Gives you stuff to do (cos lets face it, while tending the fields may be a necessary evil, it's certainly not much fun from a game playing perspective)....MUCH more fun to go out and beat on the bad guys!

And it's our job to make it damn fun.

quote: We know that Candle'Bre is a pretty small kingdom, but we have yet to establish exact dimensions in miles (or leagues, or whathaveyou). If we're going to use a specific turn time, then we'll need to establish a set size....so, let's say for the moment that CandleBre is east to west (its longest axis). Further, let's say that an armored man can march about 10 miles a day (I honestly don't know how far, but having done a bit of marching in the SCA, while wearing 16-guage steel armor, I'll hazard a guess at ten miles a day....that would be ten *exhausting* miles tho!). So...in under three months, a troop of soldiers could go from one end of the kingdom to the other.

So CB is 900 miles long? Isn't that somewhat large?

quote: Added to this complication though, is the problem that all 4x games have with combining building stuff and warmongering stuff....namely, in the middle ages, it takes a hellish long time to build stuff.

Which we can rationalize with magic.

quote: IMO....this level of realism, while historically accurate, would add layers of MM for the player to contend with, and not do much to boost the game's fun factor.

Call me insane, but I consider dynamics in keeping an army in field add whole layers to strategic thought.

I genuinely think that this is a great concept.

	05-08-2002 21:12									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Hey guys! And just so you know, the creativity expressed in these ideas is outstanding! I don't want you guys to think I'm knocking the notion itself, cos it's good, and quite realistic, I'm just having a hard time seeing it fit well with the rest of what we've got!

Now war weariness, on the other hand (we can call it something else, or...leave it the same)...that's something we've not dealt with yet, and I like somehow tying it to the total number of people that have been drafted out of province X. That's good stuff!

Ramo - Excellent points all 'round, but as I'm sitting here typing, I gotta say that I'm drawing a total blank on how we can make sending the standing army back to the fields for the harvest something that most players will groove on. Did you have something specific in your mind that we could do to keep player interest when they lose their army every Xth turn? (I'm also curious, under the model you're proposing, should soldiers who gain experience in battle lose some of that experience when they spend the downtime working the land?)

I agree that we can use magic to at least partially rationalize faster build times on provincial improvements. IMO, that's one of the BEST things about designing a fantasy game...we have the flexibility of being able to selectively ignore historical fact in preference for our own methodologies, history, and myths/legends, and to that end, we can use what is known of Candle'Bre's history thus far to rationalize some other stuff. For example, in CB, the nobility don't really have a lock on being where the majority of the armed forces are pulled from (not historically accurate, but in keeping with the kingdom's history). In the back story, nobles and peasants alike....anybody that could be scared up was handed a weapon and thrust on the front line.

After the cataclysm, with worries of Nilrogg marauders still very much on everyone's mind, I would imagine that trend would have continued....Candle'Bre would literally have been a gigantic mountain fortress, with everybody who could even make a pretense of fighting being armed to the teeth, and ready to use those weapons at the first sign of Nilrogg. Not only would fear of further Nilrogg incursions be an incentive to find ways of keeping standing forces around to deal with that possible threat, but also the upsurge in Republicanism that the refugees saw (electing their own governing body, separate from the nobility)....an armed and at least somewhat trained peasantry would be seen as vital to ensuring the nobility didn't totally dominate (and even with this, the nobility still dominate sometimes...and fairly easily at that, given their greater societal weight).

I agree that if we could somehow complicate the lives of players who insist on having uber armies running around, it'd be cool (and this would increase the strategy involved for all players, including those who just had medium sized armies on the map). I'm just wondering if there's not another way to attack that particular beast.

-=Vel=-

	05-08-2002 23:06									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Now war weariness, on the other hand (we can call it something else, or...leave it the same)...that's something we've not dealt with yet, and I like somehow tying it to the total number of people that have been drafted out of province X. That's good stuff!

That sounds good. Perhaps we can also tie it to the number of people from province X that have been killed?

quote: I gotta say that I'm drawing a total blank on how we can make sending the standing army back to the fields for the harvest something that most players will groove on.

Keep in mind, the player will be able to rely on mercenaries. In fact, this phenomenon was one of the major reasons for the large number of mercenaries in our history.

He could supplement his mercs with his standard army, but would face revolts, starvation, and the like.

quote: Did you have something specific in your mind that we could do to keep player interest when they lose their army every Xth turn?

The economic model. In just about every 4x game I've seen, the economic model has been too boring to be a decent substitute for war. I aim to change that.

quote: I'm also curious, under the model you're proposing, should soldiers who gain experience in battle lose some of that experience when they spend the downtime working the land?

Knights certainly don't shouldn't experience. If anything, they should gain experience (albeit, at a slower pace than if they were fighting).

The experience of peasant-based units could be dependent on the training requirements you set upon them (i.e. in England, the only legal sport for peasants was archery). But they shouldn't lose experience unless they've been put to pasture for a very long time...

quote: an armed and at least somewhat trained peasantry would be seen as vital to ensuring the nobility didn't totally dominate

We have to keep in mind that, I know this is a cliche, but the knight really was the tank of the battle field during the era, and a central government couldn't possibly field a large number of heavy cavalrymen without relying on nobles. You *could* build up an army composed of primarily peasants, I suppose, but it should get totally slaughtered.

quote: I'm just wondering if there's not another way to attack that particular beast.

The whole-year 'round thing doesn't bug me as much as an army that lasts for several years or more. I think we should definitely have the ability make units dormant, and increase upkeep costs (I think recruitment should cost about as much as maintaining a unit for two months).

Maybe we could drastically increase upkeep costs during one season to simulate the fact that armies went home during a campaign (and it's the player's choice what to do)?

	06-08-2002 03:30									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

My venture is that war weariness (still not quite the right name though) would be the best way of representing what we want, and the reason to make standing armies extremely small, and increase seasonal armies' importance. Frankly we can through in any number of effects for this, and we could have it (or the individual effects) effect nobles and non-nobles (and mabey a greater divisions later on) differently.

Mind you, preferably you should be able to wield some decent sized armies, and later in the game even keep most of them standing as your economy, and your ability to tax efficently from everyone (including the nobles! or at very least reduce their influence so they don't syphon off from the taxes), grows.

Side track: I'd like to see an influence rating for you, the nobles in a given province, and the people of the province. That way you can track the power struggle, and we can have interesting things happen with various balances. /Side track.

Ramo, I couldn't agree more with you concerning the economy. It must be a very important part of CB, else it'll just be a war game. Although techicly it is considering the plot. Still, if we can get a decent econ model working, and entertaining, then, well, then it'd be a good thing.

But back on track, I doubt we need to drasticly overhaul the beast. Just making large perm armies impractical (through abstraction), and making easy ways to avoid MMing should work, IMHO.

	06-08-2002 14:32									#24
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ramo The economic model. In just about every 4x game I've seen, the economic model has been too boring to be a decent substitute for war. I aim to change that.

Hear hear! And the societal model too. If you don't mind a paraphrased quote

"To heck with the fighting - I'll just wanna see what my population do next"

Remember that Vel?

Question: Is there currently a peaceful way of acquiring provinces, forming alliances and stuff? Because it (IMO) be really, really nice if you could choose to put military management and conquest right onto the back burner (beyond garrisoning up your provinces of course) and *really* get to grips with Candle'Bre as an all singing, all dancing, Wonder building, peasant juggling, Noble appeasing, diplomacy forging kind of game! And for that some kind of diplomatic 'conquest' is necessary.

Thought . Now *thats* where the notion of government points could be genuinely useful. Say you form a diplomatic alliance with a computer player. This is kind of like the 'submissive pact' of SMAC, in that the AI player will go his own sweet way but not attack you. How about using goverment points to enable you to 'nudge' your ally into doing more useful stuff (from your point of view) than the AI might do unassisted?

I think, no heck I *know* that there are more than enough ideas floating around here for a genuinely involving social/economic game. It would be a crying shame if the military aspects of the game come to dominate yet again in a 4X game.

So lets figure this out. JM's proposal re: war weariness is IMO pretty good. Can we improve on this? As a nod to the warmongers we could always make 'return to the fields the default option' but include a 'large population' switch, which turns this off.

Ooops I've gone on a bit here. Here endeth the sermon folks.

Rich.

	06-08-2002 18:50									#25
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Preach it bro, preach it!

We should prolly start another thread for discussing economic stuff, and the societal model already has its own thread.

Let us remember that we're trying to forge new ground, and we can't do that if we focus in on the military. As far as the diplomatic game is concerned, who'd like to tackle that with me? I've some ideas, but a lot of them may disrupt what we currently have in place (eg minor factions-vassals, free companies[mabey], self ruling communes where they harvest mud, and the lilke). I sure hope they don't because I think that'd be one step better than civ in those concerns. I'll look over what we have currently and try to come up with some ideas for a diplomacy model too! Hooray!

	07-08-2002 04:31									#26
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Is there currently a peaceful way of acquiring provinces, forming alliances and stuff?

I don't think we've discussed the diplomatic model yet...

quote: Candle'Bre as an all singing, all dancing, Wonder building, peasant juggling, Noble appeasing, diplomacy forging kind of game!

Hell yeah, Rich.

quote: Say you form a diplomatic alliance with a computer player. This is kind of like the 'submissive pact' of SMAC, in that the AI player will go his own sweet way but not attack you. How about using goverment points to enable you to 'nudge' your ally into doing more useful stuff (from your point of view) than the AI might do unassisted?

Interesting idea. How do you think this could be done?
BTW, a decent name for this kind of relationship could be a [weak] vassalship.

quote: free companies

I don't think they should be differentiated from bandits...

	07-08-2002 14:37									#27
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ramo I don't think we've discussed the diplomatic model yet...

No time like the present then . I'll have a think. Off the top of my head though, I think we/you need to sort out how the different factions interact 'peacefully'. Diplomacy is a part of this, I know Vel has posted the idea of an open market for resources and commodities, which is another part. Espionage would make up a third part. Then we decide if any of these methods can fit together. I'm thinking the Civ 3 trade/diplomacy screen, which was very nicely done IMO regardless of the merits or otherwise of the rest of the game.

quote: Interesting idea. How do you think this could be done? BTW, a decent name for this kind of relationship could be a [weak] vassalship.

.

Well a vassalship would be an appropriate equivalent to a submissive pact. However I was more thinking of an alliance between equals, but an alliance that actually works. My initial thoughts

1. You form an alliance with an opponent and thereby acquire a number of 'diplomacy points'. These can then be spent to influence (as opposed to Influence) your ally's actions. Such actionsmay include troop movements against a common enemy, trade agreements (aside: be nice if you could assign 1 ally as 'most favoured trading partner, to generate extra diplomacy poins), building choices in a province, technology transfers, espionage sharing etc etc. Or how about a joint Wonder building program, each faction getting a share of the Wonder benefit when its completed.

2. Additional diplomacy points can only be generated by acceding to your ally's requests of you. Thus we get a kind of *** for tat bargaining going on, to get anything meaningful out of the alliance, you have to make some concessions too.

3. For every x number of requests from your ally that you turn down, you receive -1 diplomacy points. If the total number of diplomacy points becomes negative then your ally is officially annoyed. If you stay in negative points for too long, the alliance dissolves and you lose honour.

Very rough at the moment but any thoughts welcome!

Rich.

	11-08-2002 11:57									#28
	Suffering from ads?

quote: actionsmay include troop movements against a common enemy,

Do you mean something something general like "go attack player x" or something specific like "go attack province y"? If the latter, how do you think this should be enforced (since a coordinated attack would be difficult to accompilish)? Which brings up, should this be limited to coordinated attacks only?

quote: trade agreements (aside: be nice if you could assign 1 ally as 'most favoured trading partner, to generate extra diplomacy poins),

I assume you mean a reduction in import tariffs?

quote: building choices in a province,

I don't follow you here..

quote: technology transfers,

I don't know about this... I tend to see technology during this period as innovations built upon socio-economic developments; something cannot be transfered simply by diplomatic correspondence.

quote: Or how about a joint Wonder building program, each faction getting a share of the Wonder benefit when its completed.

I'm not sure how this could be implemented...

quote: I'm thinking the Civ 3 trade/diplomacy screen, which was very nicely done IMO regardless of the merits or otherwise of the rest of the game.

Interestingly enough, I've never figured out how to establish diplomatic correspondence from that screen.

	17-08-2002 08:50									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

This is the first time I have seen this game... I dont frequent the boards much anymore...too much to do, so little time...

I haven't read all of the posts - but how's this for an idea.

Someone mentioned that armies are required to "farm" and so they should be disbanded... I dont know much about this so I may be missing a lot.

An army should require support/upkeep (both in food and gold). Sure armies can feed off the land, but large armies will quickly exhaust land areas. (Causing a property change of the terrain, or changing the terrain altogether --- note when Caesar moved through an area the army quickly devastated the land due to wood/food requirements ~ Gladiator). A "plunder" option on terrain or "cities" (dont know the terminology) should provide a temporary food source. Consequently, although some food requirements can come from the land, an army must also have a flow of food from controlled provinces. (The flow of food should be [hampered] by distance (travel route that is "safe") which takes into account roads etc). [ie. if the enemy had a "wall of troops", then the army would be cut off from supplies].

(I would suggest there should also be a maximum supply reach. Diplomatic agreements could be reached which would allow you to send supplies [or buy them] from a closer province of a different "kingdom").

A ruler should be able to channel food to the army, at the expense of a province. (Although not a clever thing to do for long!). Once an army cannot be "supported" the units within the army should start returning home. (This could either be random or allow the ruler to take out the weaker/hurt/less strategic units first). These troops would not require support once they begin to return home, as travelling in small groups they are able to live off the land. Some of these returning troops would ultimately be caught by the enemy before leaving enemy territory, and so a % would, sadly, never make it home.

Should the support capabilities of the empire grow a "Call to Arms" could be issued and soldiers would return to their respective armies, or reassemble in the province to form a new unit. (This would involve travel time back and forth).

A question: Where is the website of this place? How could one get involved in the project? (I am very busy atm, but am a few months away from being a software engineer...) Plus I have tonnes of ideas :P

	17-08-2002 17:09									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Howdy Krippled, and g'morning!

Good ideas re: armies. Requiring them to maintain an upkeep based on food is something we've kicked around a time or two. I am kinna on the fence about it. I see the logic behind it, no doubt about that, and with a painless implementation (ie - ZERO micromanagement from the player), it'd work well, and pretty accurately model military support. Based on your comments here, I shall review our latest iteration of the combat thread (cos it's been a while and I truly don't remember just where we left things there), and see what's what. You have given me some food for thought this weekend!

Ahhh, and the site you're looking for is:
http://www.pyromaniaks.net/candlebre/

Shoot me a note at WebMaster@velociryx.every1.net if you're interested in maybe signing on....

-=Vel=-