Lack of supplies... - Page 2

MaxWilson · #11 July 21st, 2007, 07:34 PM

Don't forget to pillage.

(It might be nice if there were a "Move and Pillage" option similar to "Move and Patrol." Right now, you have to alternate between moving and pillaging in enemy territory, although it could be that that's a good thing.)

-Max

Jazzepi · #12 July 21st, 2007, 07:54 PM

I think it's definitely be interesting to see "move and pillage". I think people would be much more likely to actually use pillage if their armies didn't have to stand still. After all, it's almost always more useful to just take as many territories as possible then to sit in one and pillage it down.

Jazzepi

MaxWilson · #13 July 22nd, 2007, 12:58 AM

It would also help if we knew roughly how many supplies we can expect to (probably) gain from pillaging, because again who wants to risk pillaging a province and possibly starving anyway, vs. moving on to another territory which might be greener (but often isn't)?

-Max

Sombre · #14 July 22nd, 2007, 02:12 AM

I think move and pillage would be an improvement - you wouldn't always want to use it because hey you're planning on taking that territory over eventually. It would just make stealth raiding and PD more important, which is a good thing in my mind.

Sir_Dr_D · #15 July 22nd, 2007, 02:56 AM

I don't think move and patrol actually does any patroling. As in, it won't help you catch spies or bring down unrest. I always took move and patrol to mean, move and stay outside of the castle. That is what I always took it to mean. But maybe I am wrong. does anyone have any confirmation?

Move and pillage would be an improvement. But so would making pillaging more effective I would prefer just making it more effective.

Endoperez · #16 July 22nd, 2007, 03:33 AM

It's already hard to stop raiding parties. If Caelum was able to Move&Pillage everywhere they wanted, they could raid any nation to death in very few turns. As such, I'd rather see Pillage increased in power than a new command. However, managing to pillage an enemy capital for one turn could end the game for that nation, and that shouldn't be the case. I'd much rather have Pillage just totally changed:
1) new pillage would cause unrest in proportion to the results of the pillage, as affected by 3 (the higher the unrest, the less gold pillaged, the less unrest is raised)
2) new pillage would cause pop death in proportion to the amount of unrest BEFORE pillaging
3) the amount of unrest apparent wouldn't affect the amount of supplies pillaged, but it would severely hinder the amount of gold pillaged
4) units with pillage bonus would automatically pillage if they're starving

This would make pillaging in a province with very little unrest kill only little population and produce a nice amount of gold, but pillaging in a province with lots of unrest (i.e. after pillaging) kill much more pop and produce less gold. Pillaging could get unrest above 100 in about two turns, with a decent force of fast units, but raising it above 150 would be very slow.

This way, pillaging is an effective way to increase unrest, but can't lock down a recruitment center for too long; it wouldn't be an effective way to destroy population quickly either. Only fast/pillage bonus units could cause severe unrest when raiding, other units would already be small armies and would have better things to do unless starving. And having even some units with pillage bonus in your starving army would initiate pillage, which would create lots of spare supplies and feed more than just the pillaging units.

MaxWilson · #17 July 22nd, 2007, 08:14 PM

What do you mean about pillaging an enemy capital for one turn? You can't pillage until you've captured the fortress, and if you've captured the fortress with an army large enough to effectively pillage, your opponent is already sunk, isn't he?

Other than that, the suggestion sounds cool.

-Max

Endoperez · #18 July 23rd, 2007, 09:43 AM

Quote:

MaxWilson said:
What do you mean about pillaging an enemy capital for one turn? You can't pillage until you've captured the fortress, and if you've captured the fortress with an army large enough to effectively pillage, your opponent is already sunk, isn't he?

Right, I got confused again. I've thought that pillaging enemy capitals is a bit overpowered, and then went on to conquer enemy capital for a turn only to realize it can't be done - and I still can't get it right.