Suggestions. Maths and Winter attrition for balance. Detailed explanation

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

andycott

Veteran
Best answers
0
❄
This thread has two main parts with very different suggestions

1 option should be considered as a list of simple potential solutions to balance things in a very short time.
2 is a little more complex and interesting, but similar.


Simple idea. 1 part. Balance North and South


The most simple way to balance things is just to delete snow penalty for everyone and give sturgians some other bonus. Сategorical. Easy. Great for balance. But it's not even close to be the only possible solution.
Also it will not make the world more interesting, but vice versa. In this situation it's better for everyone to be as different from others as they can be, but still keep the world balanced. :wink:

So it's better in the second way, which is to give sturgian culture a 100% bonus immunity against snow, excluding winter season. Explanation: So they will move in snow in their cultural home north territory as fast as everyone moves without snow, excluding winter. Also they will move as slow as anyone else in winter outside their territory. Logic - they simply know north territories very well, but in winter all known passes are completely invisible because of snow, so they are in the same conditions as everyone else. Also they will have a useful cultural bonus as everyone else has, not a useless one like they have now. It will help to defend their home territory, because everyone else will struggle all year long if they want to conquer them. And in winter it's harder any way.
🔥
But that's not all! For balance it is 100% needed to add the next thing into the game.
Desert desperately needs it's own penalty. And it can easily be speed penalty too, but 75% lighter! It's logical and realistic. It's desert, not steppe. It can be something else, but speed penalty is easy to add to the game as it's already an implemented mechanic.
First simple option - all year long - 25% of penalty snow applies to movement speed. So not too slow, but a little slower than usual. and balanced.
Or second even easier - 100% - the same penalty snow applies but only during summer only for desert territory - it can be called "Siesta attrition" for example or no name, it doesn't matter.
Also if they conquer someone else's territory, they will not have any bonuses or penalties. Everything's balanced
👇 ❗
Why it must be done?
It's simple maths. Right now Sturgia always has 80% penalty out of 100% possible because of snow. But in winter practically everyone else have 100%, except for Aserai (desert), who never have any penalty. Still 75% of the year everyone, except for Sturgians have 0% penalty! Roughly of course. Some certain areas are covered with snow all year long too and some are always a desert, not only Sturgian and Aserai territory, but these are not that big.
Bear in mind that these numbers are penalties. so the lower the number - the better.
So let's see how unfair it is: Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter.
Sturgia = 80+80+80+80=320% penalty in summary
Aserai = 0+0+0+0=0%
Everyone else = 0+0+0+100=100%
Table view
KingdomSpringSummerAutumnWinterSummary
Sturgia80808080320
Aserai00000
Everyone else000100100
Something isn't right here :meh:

Another suggestion. A little more complex, but similar to the first above, which is better, as for me. But still a simple way to change this in terms of adding new mechanics - is practically not adding anything new.

So how to make it more balanced without practically adding anything new? In terms of maths it'a very simple.
1. Sturgian culture bonus, including sturgian villagers and everyone else, should have near 75% immunity to snow. Not 20 like now - see the difference. So they would have 100% penalty in summary too, like everyone else instead of 320!
Maybe 60-65% as if they conquer more land they will still have this bonus every winter in any territory, so for this bonus not to be OP. That's where it becomes more complex. Not perfect, that's why I thing the first suggestion above is better. But still already more balanced than it is right now. They will still have a penalty in their home territory all year long no matter how much other territory they will conquer, but be stronger outside of their homelands than any other Kingdom in winter.
2. Absolutely the same as in the first suggestion above for desert.

So if it's applied the world becomes balanced in terms of seasonal penalties and bonuses!
Everyone now has 100% of penalty in summery all year long.

☃
2 part. Winter and Desert Attrition

The other way more complex and interesting, but similar way is to add "winter attrition" and "desert attrition", but different from I suggested earlier. What makes it work - it's logical and realistic, because of natural low supply during winter and it's cold, so you need wood and warm clothes during your travels. Also I think that the current speed penalty is the least important and dangerous thing, when you think about winter season. So at least it may need some changes.

For balance and to make things more interesting, it may be a good idea to have winter season effect "winter attrition", which already causes party slowdown (implemented with snow effect), but we should at least add faster food consumption and maybe a need to have wood/warm clothes/fur/hides with you (maybe only one thing). The northern part of the map, Sturgian's territory should have such an effect during all seasons, except for summer, and during winter it can have "severe winter attrition" effect for non-Sturgian culture units with even higher and more dangerous penalties.
Sturgians of course should have at least 75%-100% immunity to "winter attrition" effects and 75-100% immunity to "severe winter attrition", as they are adapted to cold. Also maybe they shouldn't need wood/warm clothes/fur/hides at all. Or like in 1 option - to give sturgian culture a 100% bonus immunity against snow, excluding winter season..
As practice shows, because of negative economic effect, their as appeared tiny 20% culture bonus immunity to only current snow effect is not even close enough, so these immunity numbers need to be tested and may be even higher for them and don't need wood/warm clothes/fur/hides at all f.e. only in home territory. As currently there is no such thing as a political border in the game, a home territory could be considered some effective distance from their closest village or fief.

For balance we would have a similar, but lighter "desert attrition" effect in southern desert territories, where you should be penalized respectively, but also for not having some other certain good(s) with you - f.e. new one clear water or existing wine, beer and grapes instead.

Important reasons on why it is a good idea:
First of all it can help with snowball effect.
It will force most Kingdoms to stop wars during winter season like in reality, except for Sturgians being more aggressive because of immunity. And it's good, especially because Sturgians are the first Kingdom to be wiped out most of the time (actual for beta 1.1 version and earlier ones). So this will surely change the situation.

Makes you manage your party better during winter. This makes game more interesting and different during winter or in northern territory.
Such effect needs counteraction. So every party without immunity should have more food and wood with them. Or wood is not needed to survive, but makes it easier to survive, so having wood instead makes you a little immune to an effect.
Also it would have been good having a little immunity if you have a new resource - warm clothes. Or Fur and hides instead not to create a special new one.
But warm clothes can be useful not only for this purpose, but also become a seasonal good, so you can buy it during summer and sell it during winter for profit.
So it can be realized in different ways, depending on which is better for overall balance.

It maybe especially good for Sturgian roleplaying. Also right now Sturgians are the worst balanced Kingdom, why not to balance it this way?

__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________

UPD. Some of my other threads, which are not exactly connected with this topic, but can make this game better in one way or another:
Suggestion. Make training grounds the new main source of training, especially for recruits. Add recruiters and patrols in the game.
Suggestion. Building in towns and castles is way too fast and free. Maintenance.
Tools to balance food and prosperity. Detailed suggestions for food shortages.
Build your own fief with future upgrades. Detailed.
Capitals/all fiefs with unique buildings and additional opportunities.
Hideout difficulty. A possible solution, both if you like or hate them. Detailed.
 
Last edited:

CalenLoki

Grandmaster Knight
WB
Best answers
0
I like it. Logical, realistic, makes two weak factions more unique and slightly stronger, makes season changes more noticeable.
 

Androme1

Banned
Best answers
0
Before experimenting with highly experimental new features, they need to lock down balancing within the confines of the current existing game mechanics. Once a better balance has been achieved, then Taleworlds can start looking at new features. It's a good idea but I don't think it's the right time for Taleworlds to take note of this.
 

dphilostrate

Recruit
Best answers
0
I also could eventually favor this. Though the immediate priority should be to remove movement impairing effects from snow on the Sturgians. Since Sturgia is always snowy, the Sturgians are constantly at a disadvantage as any caravans and villagers are always moving slowly. And any attempt to send a relief army to either side of Sturgians always delayed.

You are right that any sort of winter attrition would need to be balanced with desert attrition. I am only now realizing it but Sturgia and the Aserai Sultanate are basically the same length, but the Aserai can still shift around faster since there is not present impediment to their movement like the snow to Sturgia.

If there was some sort of attrition, I think it could be as simple as an chance of desertion whenever an army is in snow or in a desert. Though I’d love the idea of putting furs to use...they could become a sort of consumable. And the value to furs could help strengthen the Sturgian economy since they produce the most furs.
 

durbal

Sergeant
Best answers
0
No. The whole concept as you described it is nonsensical. Also, I strongly dislike the idea of strict 'racial' bonuses. This isn't Skyrim.
 

andycott

Veteran
Best answers
0
Before experimenting with highly experimental new features, they need to lock down balancing within the confines of the current existing game mechanics. Once a better balance has been achieved, then Taleworlds can start looking at new features. It's a good idea but I don't think it's the right time for Taleworlds to take note of this.
Well, I don't think that they will implement such things very soon. So it's mainly for the long run.
But to balance thing something should definitely be changed very soon at least not to make Sturgian Kingdom an outcast. If it's all too complex, than at least slow speed penalty for snow should be removed for now.

I also could eventually favor this. Though the immediate priority should be to remove movement impairing effects from snow on the Sturgians. Since Sturgia is always snowy, the Sturgians are constantly at a disadvantage as any caravans and villagers are always moving slowly. And any attempt to send a relief army to either side of Sturgians always delayed.

You are right that any sort of winter attrition would need to be balanced with desert attrition. I am only now realizing it but Sturgia and the Aserai Sultanate are basically the same length, but the Aserai can still shift around faster since there is not present impediment to their movement like the snow to Sturgia.

If there was some sort of attrition, I think it could be as simple as an chance of desertion whenever an army is in snow or in a desert. Though I’d love the idea of putting furs to use...they could become a sort of consumable. And the value to furs could help strengthen the Sturgian economy since they produce the most furs.
I agree about slow movement. That's one of the reasons, why this is must have! And that's why Sturgians should have a lot more than 20% immunity they have right now. Overall I don't understand why it's 20 and not at least 25% from the start. There are 4 seasons, so winter is 25% of the year. But still not all the map is covered in snow in winter, so that's why Sturgians should have even bigger immunity and Derert should have some kind of penalty too. Because currently it's not balanced at all.
Above new big part with suggestion and simple maths for this. ☝ I added it in the main thread.

No. The whole concept as you described it is nonsensical. Also, I strongly dislike the idea of strict 'racial' bonuses. This isn't Skyrim.
Racial bonuses are already a part of the game. If devs remove them, than it's OK. But it seems that they won't. So it's a suggestion also to make these bonuses make more sense and balanced.
 
Last edited:

durbal

Sergeant
Best answers
0
Well, I don't think that they will implement such things very soon. So it's mainly for the long run.
But to balance thing something should definitely be changed very soon at least not to make Sturgian Kingdom an outcast. If it's all too complex, than at least slow speed penalty for snow should be removed for now.


I agree about slow movement. That's one of the reasons, why this is must have! And that's why Sturgians should have a lot more than 20% immunity they have right now. Overall I don't understand why it's 20 and not at least 25% from the start. There are 4 seasons, so winter is 25% of the year. But still not all the map is covered in snow in winter, so that's why Sturgians should have even bigger immunity and Derert should have some kind of penalty too. Because currently it's not balanced at all.


Racial bonuses are already a part of the game. If devs remove them, than it's OK. But it seems that they won't. So it's a suggestion also to make these bonuses make more sense and balanced.
They don't make sense and they aren't balanced. Here I am, Mr. Khuzait. My army magically moves faster on the campaign map (not really since it doesn't seem to work anyway, but let's imagine). Yeah, my army is 100% Sturgians since I'm the ruler of Tyal. No, my army does not move 20% faster in snow (again, doesn't work anyway but let's imagine). But my cavalry move 10% faster on the campaign map because I'm Mr. Khuzait.

Mount and Blade is not Skyrim. You are not just your player character running around fighting demons and dragons. Racial bonuses make no sense and if anything are extremely limiting.
 

andycott

Veteran
Best answers
0
They don't make sense and they aren't balanced. Here I am, Mr. Khuzait. My army magically moves faster on the campaign map (not really since it doesn't seem to work anyway, but let's imagine). Yeah, my army is 100% Sturgians since I'm the ruler of Tyal. No, my army does not move 20% faster in snow (again, doesn't work anyway but let's imagine). But my cavalry move 10% faster on the campaign map because I'm Mr. Khuzait.

Mount and Blade is not Skyrim. You are not just your player character running around fighting demons and dragons. Racial bonuses make no sense and if anything are extremely limiting.
I don't think that you even read what I answered you. I got your point. from the start. You've got your opinion, I've got mine. Devs've got theirs.
I'm not a big fan of cultural bonuses either, especially in the way, they are implemented right now. But I understand their idea, they added this to make different cultures really different. Also it's EA and maybe they will not be actual when they release the game.

Also I think that the more realistic the game, the better. If you even read the thread, you should have understood this. And if you read only 5-10% of what I suggested, it makes difference. So no reason to tell me about Skyrims or something like this.

Also I added absolutely different new suggestion to the first thread just an hour or half an hour ago.

The goal of the thread is to make the game more balanced, not to popularize racial bonuses. Also I answered you that I'm OK with completely removing them.
Also, I strongly dislike the idea of strict 'racial' bonuses. This isn't Skyrim.
Racial bonuses are already a part of the game. If devs remove them, than it's OK. But it seems that they won't. So it's a suggestion also to make these bonuses make more sense and balanced.
And if you dislike them so much, just make a thread about this. Maybe there are lots of people, who share your opinion. I don't really see a problem with them, unless they make the game worse. In this particular situation, the problem is not these bonuses themselves, but how unbalanced they are. If you completely remove only cultural bonuses right now, it will make the balance even worse, f.e. for Sturgians. So removing bonuses, you should also remove penalties from snow, etc. etc.
That's why I tried to make a simple suggestion in this case.
 
Last edited:

Antoine42

Regular
WB
Best answers
0
I'd absolutely love to have attrition effects in difficult terrain for cultures not used to it, that would be logical and a good strategic addition, it would force you to plan your invasions much more than just gathering 1000 men and going to siege, desert/heavy snow should definitely impact morale,movement speed and food consumption.

However, before raising all this, the question I think we should ask is : do the current cultures bonuses make any sense in the first place?
To me, definitely not, they're not balanced at all:
-Aserai get trade reduction penalty and a discount on caravan costs, this is a player only bonus. The AI doesn't give a dam about that.
-Kuzaits get +10% movement speed for horsemen on the map: I don't even understand this. They don't field 100% horsemen armies, therefore, it's again a player only bonus should you choose to field a 100% horse army, it doesn't really impact anything else than steppe bandits, or maybe caravans? I dk if this applies to these. I don't know, but I find this useless.
-Vlandia is imo the only valid culture bonus atm, they get 20% more xp, it's the only one usefull (considering it works at all, not sure either)
-Sturgia and Battania bonuses are the most imbalanced imo. They should theoretically impact every one, player and AI, again they're not working atm. And even considering they do, they're pretty useless. They should definitely get something else
-Empires get 20% construction speed,repair and siege equipment, this is cool at the beginning, but past some point in the campaign, it becomes nearly useless. All cities reach all their buildings max pretty quick, so it becomes a 20% sieges engines building speed only. And again, the AI doesn't really mind that, so not that usefull anyways..

I think those bonuses should impact everyone from that culture, AI and player alike. They're kinda ok in theory, some are logical, like Sturgia being less impacted to a climate they're used to, or Battania being expert woodsmen, but they really feel like they've been thrown in the game at the last moment without much thinking behind them, and that's a bit of a shame, cause I think it's a good idea in the first place. Any civilization has always something they're better at than others.

I'd rather have as you suggested, attrition and immunity to it for those evolving in those condition all their lives, it's been something to consider throughout our own history, the examples are numerous, from the Crusades to 1812, and even till the two WW. Heck, even since Teutoburg, in fact it's as old as the history of warfare itself.

But they need to also fix every other one of those, so they're balanced, apply to everyone and bring specificity and an advantage to each faction, not just only sometimes everyone, sometimes the player, etc..

I'd rather have Battanians able to hide and ambush in forest than 20% speed in them. I'd rather have Sturgia immune to snow, and maybe something like HP bonus maybe, the dudes must be quite strong evolving all their lives in such harsh conditions. Global trade and growth bonuses for the Aserai and immunity to desert, would be better than something impacting the player only. I don't really know for the others, I can't figure something else at the top of my head, but you get the idea

I think they're kinda messy right now, and it's not only Sturgia that needs a fix regarding this imo
 

andycott

Veteran
Best answers
0
I'd absolutely love to have attrition effects in difficult terrain for cultures not used to it, that would be logical and a good strategic addition, it would force you to plan your invasions much more than just gathering 1000 men and going to siege, desert/heavy snow should definitely impact morale,movement speed and food consumption.

However, before raising all this, the question I think we should ask is : do the current cultures bonuses make any sense in the first place?
To me, definitely not, they're not balanced at all:
-Aserai get trade reduction penalty and a discount on caravan costs, this is a player only bonus. The AI doesn't give a dam about that.
-Kuzaits get +10% movement speed for horsemen on the map: I don't even understand this. They don't field 100% horsemen armies, therefore, it's again a player only bonus should you choose to field a 100% horse army, it doesn't really impact anything else than steppe bandits, or maybe caravans? I dk if this applies to these. I don't know, but I find this useless.
-Vlandia is imo the only valid culture bonus atm, they get 20% more xp, it's the only one usefull (considering it works at all, not sure either)
-Sturgia and Battania bonuses are the most imbalanced imo. They should theoretically impact every one, player and AI, again they're not working atm. And even considering they do, they're pretty useless. They should definitely get something else
-Empires get 20% construction speed,repair and siege equipment, this is cool at the beginning, but past some point in the campaign, it becomes nearly useless. All cities reach all their buildings max pretty quick, so it becomes a 20% sieges engines building speed only. And again, the AI doesn't really mind that, so not that usefull anyways..

I think those bonuses should impact everyone from that culture, AI and player alike. They're kinda ok in theory, some are logical, like Sturgia being less impacted to a climate they're used to, or Battania being expert woodsmen, but they really feel like they've been thrown in the game at the last moment without much thinking behind them, and that's a bit of a shame, cause I think it's a good idea in the first place. Any civilization has always something they're better at than others.

I'd rather have as you suggested, attrition and immunity to it for those evolving in those condition all their lives, it's been something to consider throughout our own history, the examples are numerous, from the Crusades to 1812, and even till the two WW. Heck, even since Teutoburg, in fact it's as old as the history of warfare itself.

But they need to also fix every other one of those, so they're balanced, apply to everyone and bring specificity and an advantage to each faction, not just only sometimes everyone, sometimes the player, etc..

I'd rather have Battanians able to hide and ambush in forest than 20% speed in them. I'd rather have Sturgia immune to snow, and maybe something like HP bonus maybe, the dudes must be quite strong evolving all their lives in such harsh conditions. Global trade and growth bonuses for the Aserai and immunity to desert, would be better than something impacting the player only. I don't really know for the others, I can't figure something else at the top of my head, but you get the idea

I think they're kinda messy right now, and it's not only Sturgia that needs a fix regarding this imo
Agree with every point.
From my experience and also from what I've read on forums, Sturgia is the most unbalanced of all. That's why I decided to come up the with ideas on how to make them more balanced in particular and how to make the world more balanced generally.
This is not the only thread with detailed suggestions I've made on this forum. Hope that with or without my help when the game is released there won't be such major problems and will be a lot more of interesting content.
 
Last edited:

Ragratt

Squire
WB
Best answers
0
+1

I support this. Change I would make is to give every season a modifier to cohesion and morale. This will break up armies and cause deserters. Troops will be less willing to fight. Increasing food cost in winter doesn't make sense. The most Northern and Southern factions would become more aggressive, they are from harsh climates, and have native climate advantage. They are equipped properly and have knowledge of those climates. Their preferred warfaring season would be when weather is most moderate. In seasons when their native climate is inhospitable they will prefer raiding and fighting in more moderate climate. Spring and Autumn nobles should focus on planting and harvest. All factions prefer peace during these seasons. They should be encouraged to attend tournaments and handle diplomatic and economic affairs. Influence cost to enlist armies should increase by the base modifier each season.

Sturgia:
prefers to war in Summer like other factions (unless in desert), but unlike other factions will have military campaigns in winter. The harsh winter still effects them, but less than half as much and only in snowy climate. In winter they prefer to goto in warmer climates (south) and suffer no penalty there. So they have 2 warfaring seasons.

I want to note that in this chart all other factions suffer a -50% modifier to cohesion and morale during winters in snowy Sturgia lands. Native suffer -20% but no penalty while in moderate climates. This means their home territory is very strong defensively in that time and allows better offensive position at a time when their neighbors are at a modifier disadvantage. This should be a very strong buff for their faction (especially in troop expense modifiers also added).

Aserai:
prefers to war in winter without penalty anywhere, but snowy regions. Can form armies in Summer (only outside of home territory). The southern desert is hot and miserable this gives incentive to fight in temperate climates making them more aggressive. They suffer cohesion or morale penalty only while in armies remaining in home territory during Summer. Like Sturgia they prefer to fight in two seasons.

Every other faction:
prefer to fight only in summer. Will often continue fighting but at the expense of influence. Armies lose morale They suffer negative cohesion effect three season of year Spring, Autumn and Winter and increased penalties when invading or operating in Northern and Southern climates in off-season.

Spring & Autumn:
All factions prefer to not go to war or continue fighting during Spring and Autumn seasons. When they do army cohesion and morale suffer. This should break up the constant WAR. Breaks in fighting will also allow troops to heal and parties to gather recruits. I expect there would be more veteran troops as a result.

Increased troop expenses:
In addition to these other modifiers increased troop upkeep could be added during off-seasons. Some leaders are travel around the map in huge armies or with large parties while at peace. They should be given incentive to unload the bulk of troops into garrisons in while not at war, in Spring and Autumn. AI would have to understand how to adapt to seasonal modifiers, that's especially important to have this function properly.

The benefits:
Making these changes would prevent "steamrolling," and create seasons of peace and war. Changes described would also create more interesting and unique cultural differences between factions that relate to their native climate. Unlike penalizing food consumption, modifiers should isolate effects to troops and warfare specifically. This way the economy remains relatively unaffected except that all regions will be more prosperous due to seasons of peace and war, rather than nonstop chaos.

Seasonal Modifier Chart:
KingdomSpringSummerAutumnWinterSummary
Sturgia(total base mod.)
cohesion & morale-20%(-20%**)-20%(-20%*)-40%
movement(-10%**)n/a
Aserai
cohesion & morale-20%(-20%**)-20%n/a (-50%*)-40%
movement-10%(-10% *)
Everyone else
cohesion-20%(-20%**)-20%-20% (-50%*)-60%
movement(-10% **)(-10% * )
* - while in snow climate
** - while in hot climate
 
Last edited:

andycott

Veteran
Best answers
0
+1

I support this. Change I would make is to give every season a modifier to cohesion and morale. This will break up armies and cause deserters. Troops will be less willing to fight. Increasing food cost in winter doesn't make sense. The most Northern and Southern factions would become more aggressive, they are from harsh climates, and have native climate advantage. They are equipped properly and have knowledge of those climates. Their preferred warfaring season would be when weather is most moderate. In seasons when their native climate is inhospitable they will prefer raiding and fighting in more moderate climate. Spring and Autumn nobles should focus on planting and harvest. All factions prefer peace during these seasons. They should be encouraged to attend tournaments and handle diplomatic and economic affairs. Influence cost to enlist armies should increase by the base modifier each season.

Sturgia:
prefers to war in Summer like other factions (unless in desert), but unlike other factions will have military campaigns in winter. The harsh winter still effects them, but less than half as much and only in snowy climate. In winter they prefer to goto in warmer climates (south) and suffer no penalty there. So they have 2 warfaring seasons.

I want to note that in this chart all other factions suffer a -50% modifier to cohesion and morale during winters in snowy Sturgia lands. Native suffer -20% but no penalty while in moderate climates. This means their home territory is very strong defensively in that time and allows better offensive position at a time when their neighbors are at a modifier disadvantage. This should be a very strong buff for their faction (especially in troop expense modifiers also added).

Aserai:
prefers to war in winter without penalty anywhere, but snowy regions. Can form armies in Summer (only outside of home territory). The southern desert is hot and miserable this gives incentive to fight in temperate climates making them more aggressive. They suffer cohesion or morale penalty only while in armies remaining in home territory during Summer. Like Sturgia they prefer to fight in two seasons.

Every other faction:
prefer to fight only in summer. Will often continue fighting but at the expense of influence. Armies lose morale They suffer negative cohesion effect three season of year Spring, Autumn and Winter and increased penalties when invading or operating in Northern and Southern climates in off-season.

Spring & Autumn:
All factions prefer to not go to war or continue fighting during Spring and Autumn seasons. When they do army cohesion and morale suffer. This should break up the constant WAR. Breaks in fighting will also allow troops to heal and parties to gather recruits. I expect there would be more veteran troops as a result.

Increased troop expenses:
In addition to these other modifiers increased troop upkeep could be added during off-seasons. Some leaders are travel around the map in huge armies or with large parties while at peace. They should be given incentive to unload the bulk of troops into garrisons in while not at war, in Spring and Autumn. AI would have to understand how to adapt to seasonal modifiers, that's especially important to have this function properly.

The benefits:
Making these changes would prevent "steamrolling," and create seasons of peace and war. Changes described would also create more interesting and unique cultural differences between factions that relate to their native climate. Unlike penalizing food consumption, modifiers should isolate effects to troops and warfare specifically. This way the economy remains relatively unaffected except that all regions will be more prosperous due to seasons of peace and war, rather than nonstop chaos.

Seasonal Modifier Chart:
KingdomSpringSummerAutumnWinterSummary
Sturgia(total base mod.)
cohesion & morale-20%(-20%**)-20%(-20%*)-40%
movement(-10%**)n/a
Aserai
cohesion & morale-20%(-20%**)-20%n/a (-50%*)-40%
movement-10%(-10% *)
Everyone else
cohesion-20%(-20%**)-20%-20% (-50%*)-60%
movement(-10% **)(-10% * )
* - while in snow climate
** - while in hot climate
Thank you for suggestions. 👍

The first thing, which catches an eye is disbalance in numbers, as you can see from your own table. 🤔

In this situation every weakness can make one stronger in other particular area(s).
Maybe the world shouldn't be perfectly balanced. But in this situation, if every faction will be very different from another one, and the world is still balanced, it seems to be more interesting to watch, which way it will lead them all. So differences are good in such a case.
But if disbalance will be too strong, than it may lead to no changes from what we have now and snowballing will continue. Calradia is too small for this. So it's not very good for gameplay.
 

Ragratt

Squire
WB
Best answers
0
Your entire argument is based on a need for balancing. This would give Sturgia a strong boost and absolutely reduce snowballing and fighting. Some factions fighting less often than the rest time doesn’t make them weaker it gives them more time to recover and should make them overall more defensive. Id want seasonal warfare to have nobels defnding recruit and training and rushing to tournaments not sieges. There are still bandits and looters hideouts to clear. All factions should do this Spring and Autumn, However Sturgia and Aserai would, under this concept, engage in more raiding and inter-faction warfare without penalty. This assumes they are more aggressive cultures due to their harsh climate and shorter growing seasons. Maybe Sturgia would have a stronger focus on raiding caravans and villages during for food. This adds depth and uniqueness to factions rebalances aggressiveness.

You state “desert desperately needs it’s own penalty.” I’ve done that here, now you claim it is unsbalanced. Can’t really have both. I’ve implemented your own ideas but tweaked them for more precise effects.

I’m glad to have found this thread I share most of your ideas so it was a pleasant surprise to see most of it laid out so thoroughly.

My idea would be a more whole systems solution to:
seasonally reduce aggression
Encourage rebuilding of troops to preserve higher tiers
garrisoning high number troops on off seasons
Buff Sturgia for winter fighting
Create culturally and regionally distinct patterns of warfare
Reduce army size and frequency of large battles
Increase seasonal attrition via morale and army cohesion
Increase desert and snow penalties seasonally
Etc.
 

andycott

Veteran
Best answers
0
Your entire argument is based on a need for balancing. This would give Sturgia a strong boost and absolutely reduce snowballing and fighting. Some factions fighting less often than the rest time doesn’t make them weaker it gives them more time to recover and should make them overall more defensive. Id want seasonal warfare to have nobels defnding recruit and training and rushing to tournaments not sieges. There are still bandits and looters hideouts to clear. All factions should do this Spring and Autumn, However Sturgia and Aserai would, under this concept, engage in more raiding and inter-faction warfare without penalty. This assumes they are more aggressive cultures due to their harsh climate and shorter growing seasons. Maybe Sturgia would have a stronger focus on raiding caravans and villages during for food. This adds depth and uniqueness to factions rebalances aggressiveness.

You state “desert desperately needs it’s own penalty.” I’ve done that here, now you claim it is unsbalanced. Can’t really have both. I’ve implemented your own ideas but tweaked them for more precise effects.

I’m glad to have found this thread I share most of your ideas so it was a pleasant surprise to see most of it laid out so thoroughly.

My idea would be a more whole systems solution to:
seasonally reduce aggression
Encourage rebuilding of troops to preserve higher tiers
garrisoning high number troops on off seasons
Buff Sturgia for winter fighting
Create culturally and regionally distinct patterns of warfare
Reduce army size and frequency of large battles
Increase seasonal attrition via morale and army cohesion
Increase desert and snow penalties seasonally
Etc.
I meant it saying mostly about total 40, 40 and 60%. :wink:
Also I think that even if I disagree with something else, it doesn't mean that I'm right and you're wrong about it.
And in general I share most of your ideas too.
 
Last edited:

Ragratt

Squire
WB
Best answers
0
It is based on cohesion and morale specially in armies. So troops would should be programmed largely to shelter through the winter. All would focus on economic, diplomatic and social functions and recruiting through spring and fall. This would go honor seasons. Maybe aserai and battiana would focus on raiding through the winter to sustain themselves. I think it’s make things more interesting, a more diverse range of gameplay and strategy. “oh this number is higher than that” doesn’t consider the whole range of effects.

I’d also like to see modifiers for diplomacy based on seasons. All factions should be less likely to declare war, more likely to negotiate peace in Spring / Autumn. During winter Sturgia / Aserai likely as summer to declare war. All other factions more likely “tolerate” raids during winter, though obviously they will defend and because they are more defensive and peaceful during that season they would be there to do so.
 
Last edited:

dphilostrate

Recruit
Best answers
0
What I really like about the idea of winter attrition is that it adds a...what I like to call...a meaningfulness factor to the time of year. While it is cool from an RPG view to be able fight and siege on winter maps and in blizzards...it would be cool from an RTS view to have the time of year impact player thinking.

In regards to my thoughts on factoring food supply in winter attrition, allow me to shamelessly plug my thread Seasonal economic changes in which I suggest how seasons should factor into the supply and price of goods.
 

andycott

Veteran
Best answers
0
It is based on cohesion and morale specially in armies. So troops would should be programmed largely to shelter through the winter. All would focus on economic, diplomatic and social functions and recruiting through spring and fall. This would go honor seasons. Maybe aserai and battiana would focus on raiding through the winter to sustain themselves. I think it’s make things more interesting, a more diverse range of gameplay and strategy. “oh this number is higher than that” doesn’t consider the whole range of effects.

I’d also like to see modifiers for diplomacy based on seasons. All factions should be less likely to declare war, more likely to negotiate peace in Spring / Autumn. During winter Sturgia / Aserai likely as summer to declare war. All other factions more likely “tolerate” raids during winter, though obviously they will defend and because they are more defensive and peaceful during that season they would be there to do so.
Yes, I already understood this from the start. :xf-smile:


What I really like about the idea of winter attrition is that it adds a...what I like to call...a meaningfulness factor to the time of year. While it is cool from an RPG view to be able fight and siege on winter maps and in blizzards...it would be cool from an RTS view to have the time of year impact player thinking.

In regards to my thoughts on factoring food supply in winter attrition, allow me to shamelessly plug my thread Seasonal economic changes in which I suggest how seasons should factor into the supply and price of goods.
A good suggestion from you. :xf-wink: