Is this scraped out too?

Users who are viewing this thread

This is what we have now. It punishes weaker factions slightly but not enough to really matter in terms of snowballing.
Forgive my ignorance, but how does this punish weaker factions, I mean they are obviously under the same conditions as other factions, but I thought this punished stronger factions more as bigger armies couldn't resupply so easily if they over extended in the conquering. But yeah I guess they could always raid, and keep raiding.
In weaker factions they shouldn't overextend into further territories so much, but they probably have the same behavior as others. Instead they should have a more defensive behavior and look for opportunity (making alliances, this is being worked on, investing in economic growth rather than military, more defensive unit roaster, raiding and gorilla tactics..) and wait to attack when the enemy is more vulnerable. If weaker factions do not have the same aggressive behavior then this logistical problems would affect more stronger factions that are more likely to go further in conquest.

I guess another way of reducing conquering roller coasters and snowballing with logistics would be making armies would move slower, proportionally to the number of wounded in the party as well as a slight increase food consumption and maybe requiring other types of supplies, medical supplies, supplies for siege engines, the necessary building materials... All of this would provide a way to reduce the pace of the conquest and add depth to the gameplay.
Plus:
Adding cultural bonuses and penalties (which I think is also being worked on) could have an affect on logistics aiding weaker factions as they would be in their natural territory and penalize conquering factions which are not adapted to the location. For example: Introducing food foraging and giving a cultural bonus to each faction that increases their foraging supply by (e.g.) 20 % only in their geographical location or type of terrain/flora/fauna/weather...
In the town daily defaults – add "defensive stance", one that reduces enemy loot in the region villages by (e.g.) 70%, it would simulate the hiding of the villages supplies, in order to reduce the enemy capability of resupply by raiding.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Forgive my ignorance, but how does this punish weaker factions, I mean they are obviously under the same conditions as other factions, but I thought this punished stronger factions more as bigger armies couldn't resupply so easily if they over extended in the conquering. But yeah I guess they could always raid, and keep raiding.

Weaker factions have more food problems in their towns, due to raids on the villages, so their armies sometimes can't find enough to eat in a given area and have to go a longer distance to get the food. That is basically an influence tax on every single army because they either start further away or burn cohesion faster due to starving parties; in either case the army tops up cohesion quicker (or disbands). The AI plays by the same rules as a player for generating and spending influence, so that it isn't a limitless resource and smaller/weaker factions have a lot less than stronger factions.

But like I said, it is a mild thing and doesn't really contribute much to snowballing. The Khuzaits have an objectively worse food situation (like three total grain villages) than most other factions and their armies have no problem conquering half the Empire.
 
Top Bottom