Seasons, Famine, and Attrition

[InsanoPotato]

Why do these elements not exist in this game in any meaningful way? All of these would realistically affect every nation, especially these warring Nations on the continent of Calradia.

I don't want to be overly critical, but Warfare in this game is thinner than dental floss. There is no real tangible effect on each nation when they fight a war.

There is no famine when multiple villages get raided or if too many villagers don't return home from war. They're is no attrition when soldiers are on a long march with little R&R. More importantly, there doesn't appear to be seasons. No spring, summer, fall (autumn, for my European brethren), or winter.

Historically, the seasons played an enormous part in classical and medieval warfare. Often times, wars would be fought from Spring through Fall and end at the onset of winter.

I love this game, but it is way too thin. Please add SOME authenticity to this game.

 

[Edgewise]

It is reflected in the abstract value called 'prosperity'. When a city gets sieged and starts starving, security drops, etc, it can take economic damage that lowers it's prosperity that takes years to come back from in bad cases. It's not a central focus of the game to look in depth at the devastation caused by war, but it is represented in the stats and values of cities and castles. At the end of the day, the central focus of the game is running around stabbing ppl and having troops you can command to run around and stab people.

 

[InsanoPotato]

It is reflected in the abstract value called 'prosperity'. When a city gets sieged and starts starving, security drops, etc, it can take economic damage that lowers it's prosperity that takes years to come back from in bad cases. It's not a central focus of the game to look in depth at the devastation caused by war, but it is represented in the stats and values of cities and castles. At the end of the day, the central focus of the game is running around stabbing ppl and having troops you can command to run around and stab people.

The score doesn't effect anything though. It's rather pointless and serves little purpose. The nation's can lose by a landslide and lose thousands of soldiers and then declare a war on another nation and have thousands more soldiers. It doesn't make sense and that makes progression feel nonexistent.

 

[Apocal]

I don't want to be overly critical, but Warfare in this game is thinner than dental floss. There is no real tangible effect on each nation when they fight a war.

There is no famine when multiple villages get raided or if too many villagers don't return home from war.

There is absolutely famine when too many villages get raided. It was THE single most complained about mechanic when early access began.

Not to be rude, but how long have you played this game?

 

[CaptainLee]

Historically, the seasons played an enormous part in classical and medieval warfare. Often times, wars would be fought from Spring through Fall and end at the onset of winter.

I love this game, but it is way too thin. Please add SOME authenticity to this game.

Seasons and weather in battles were mentioned in a blog like five years ago but as far as the latter it's just cosmetic as far as I know. TW seem to prefer focusing on completely tangential elements than making battles more indepth and interesting it seems. Ah, imagine Aserai troops getting penalties in snowy conditions yet Sturgians don't. Might even prevent faction snowballing (pun intended).

 

[InsanoPotato]

There is absolutely famine when too many villages get raided. It was THE single most complained about mechanic when early access began.

Not to be rude, but how long have you played this game?

I've been playing since day one. I've never seen any famine in this game or even the effect of famine in this game.

What effect does famine have currently?

 

[InsanoPotato]

Seasons and weather in battles were mentioned in a blog like five years ago but as far as the latter it's just cosmetic as far as I know. TW seem to prefer focusing on completely tangential elements than making battles more indepth and interesting it seems. Ah, imagine Aserai troops getting penalties in snowy conditions yet Sturgians don't. Might even prevent faction snowballing (pun intended).

That's what would make the seasons amazing by themselves. Any nation who engages the Aserai in warfare, on Aserai home turf should suffer penalties, like going through provisions faster.

 

[Antaeus]

I've been playing since day one. I've never seen any famine in this game or even the effect of famine in this game.

What effect does famine have currently?

Other than the negative affects of starvation for a city under siege, you can see in a city's stats the breakdown of each effect. For example, in a city with a food shortage, it will count as a negative under the loyalty column - making it more likely to rebel.

 

[Apocal]

I've been playing since day one. I've never seen any famine in this game or even the effect of famine in this game.

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/disable-garrison-food-consumption-until-you-fix-it-or-set-it-to-a-constant-of-1.420465/page-2#post-9483037

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/food-shortage.422990/post-9442350

Just two threads. It isn't as much an issue now but you can absolutely tank the Prosperity (stand-in for population) and starve the garrison of a town by raiding its villages.

 

[InsanoPotato]

Other than the negative affects of starvation for a city under siege, you can see in a city's stats the breakdown of each effect. For example, in a city with a food shortage, it will count as a negative under the loyalty column - making it more likely to rebel.

Ohhhh. I hadn't realized that it played a role in rebellions. That's a great tangible affect of famine.

How do I look at the statistics screen, so I can see how my actions are effecting a rival nation?

 

[Antaeus]

Ohhhh. I hadn't realized that it played a role in rebellions. That's a great tangible affect of famine.

How do I look at the statistics screen, so I can see how my actions are effecting a rival nation?

You can see the breakdown of what is impacting on a city by hovering over the numbers and icons top left of a city screen, or in the manage city screen. When you hover over loyalty for example, it will list values such as your culture, your governor's culture, prosperity, outstanding security issues (such as poachers or bandits). You'll see a food shortage affect a number of things.

 

[AndrewArt]

or realistic wounds, infections, tiredness of walking too much for the troops... ya, things are missing

 

[geala]

There is always a balance to be hold between game flow and single frictions which may seem realistic but could disturb fun. For example wounds: I would like to see visually realistic wounds and results, like entrails coming out of sliced bodies. But that's not what you mean, I know, you mean gameplay consequences. But imagine what it would mean if soldiers would behave realistically after wounding, in a game where battles, small and big, are events on a daily basis, like by assembly lines (while in the real world an ancient/medieval soldier could expect a bigger battle every ten years or so).

Let's say your hero got a spear stab in the abdomen through the guts. Usually in ancient times a slow death would have been the most common result, and even if we would assume that Calradia had mastered bacterial wound infections a lot earlier then our world, it would mean a long holiday in bed to recover. Meanwhile Khuzaits were raiding your stuff with impunity. That's not fun.

Infections were surely the main cause of casualties in war before the middle of the 19th c. AD in our world, not battle losses. But is it so much fun to simulate it, seeing your precious top tier troops dying shortly before the next big battle by disease? Could the AI handle it? I doubt that many players would be overly delighted.

 

[grunwalder01]

Seasons and weather in battles were mentioned in a blog like five years ago but as far as the latter it's just cosmetic as far as I know. TW seem to prefer focusing on completely tangential elements than making battles more indepth and interesting it seems. Ah, imagine Aserai troops getting penalties in snowy conditions yet Sturgians don't. Might even prevent faction snowballing (pun intended).

We don't even have weather at all and seasons are not present on campaign map (other than snow)

 

[Magello]

You do realize the fact you need to really explain to him the prosperity of towns that it really doesn't matter. If the city is sieged and prosperity is wrecked it actually doesn't have a real effect because it is hardly felt by the player. Doesn't matter if you can look it up and go oh ya look, this number went down if you really don't feel it. The rebellions is a start but they feel week and impotent right now and are really making no lasting change, if it was dynamic and made a new faction or they had any real teeth to them then it would mean something.

Besides, his main point is actually excellent but I really see TW avoiding this at all costs. It would slow down the game during the winter and the player would then be required to nation build which is nonexistent in this game. They have very shallow functions which again are not really felt by the player, would require no real effort to ignore or change. Weather and seasons forcing a raiding, waring, and rebuilding phase would help every aspect to the game. Pacing would be better, natural deterrent to snowballing, and actually maybe not beating the game before your child is 5.

 

[Apocal]

You do realize the fact you need to really explain to him the prosperity of towns that it really doesn't matter. If the city is sieged and prosperity is wrecked it actually doesn't have a real effect because it is hardly felt by the player. Doesn't matter if you can look it up and go oh ya look, this number went down if you really don't feel it.

The dude didn't even notice that garrisons could starve. At that point, I don't think it is the game's fault. Also, Prosperity is converted into daily income, so players should be noticing it.

Besides, his main point is actually excellent but I really see TW avoiding this at all costs. It would slow down the game during the winter and the player would then be required to nation build which is nonexistent in this game. They have very shallow functions which again are not really felt by the player, would require no real effort to ignore or change. Weather and seasons forcing a raiding, waring, and rebuilding phase would help every aspect to the game. Pacing would be better, natural deterrent to snowballing, and actually maybe not beating the game before your child is 5.

Nah, they'll avoid it all costs because the AI can already barely get an army to deliver a siege without starving.

 

[Edgewise]

The score doesn't effect anything though. It's rather pointless and serves little purpose. The nation's can lose by a landslide and lose thousands of soldiers and then declare a war on another nation and have thousands more soldiers. It doesn't make sense and that makes progression feel nonexistent.

Prosperity impacts loyalty, tax and tariff income, ultimately the value of a city is determined by the prosperity.