Partial Payment for Troops

[Sacha]

So we agree that we are taking fun out of the game? Awesome.

Personally, I'll take a border war over a long-range war any day of the week. Sending out an army on a 3 week campaign to the other side of the island can be fun, but not if it's the only thing you do.

[Indirik]

Yeah, I agree. Borders wars don't always make sense. But when you get a good one going, it can be one of the most exciting parts of the game.

[Nathan]

Why?

Read the rest of my post, and you'll see.  ;)

I did, but I still don't see a reason. Partial payment isn't just a tool for fighting long wars. I hardly even see a benefit to long wars, you're going to be out of your realm so you won't be getting gold, this can only keep you out for a few days more at the most without suffering major consequences.

By partial payment, are we meaning that when you pay them 30 of 35 gold, they're "ok" with it and you have to pay them again in another 7 days? Or will they still have 1 day left unpaid? Because if it's the former then I see why it's rejected. But the latter just helps with those "ahh damn, they actually needed 1 extra gold than I have" moments, or those "early tax messed up my payment system" moments.

[egamma]

Read the rest of my post, and you'll see.  ;)


I did, but I still don't see a reason. Partial payment isn't just a tool for fighting long wars. I hardly even see a benefit to long wars, you're going to be out of your realm so you won't be getting gold, this can only keep you out for a few days more at the most without suffering major consequences.

By partial payment, are we meaning that when you pay them 30 of 35 gold, they're "ok" with it and you have to pay them again in another 7 days? Or will they still have 1 day left unpaid? Because if it's the former then I see why it's rejected. But the latter just helps with those "ahh damn, they actually needed 1 extra gold than I have" moments, or those "early tax messed up my payment system" moments.

Has YOUR boss ever done that to you?


Indirik: How about we attack Talerium, if we don't like long-distance wars? Let's put your character where your mouth is, to mangle a saying.

[Indirik]

Indirik: How about we attack Talerium, if we don't like long-distance wars? Let's put your character where your mouth is, to mangle a saying.

Ha! You picked the wrong example.

You have no idea how many times Kende has proposed marching right through Talerium to knock on CE's back door. (I hate marching all the way over to Menedor...) I even outlined the plan in some detail to the Royal Advisors. Unfortunately, KK won't let me. :( He seems to have some funny idea about honoring treaties and all that jazz. And since KK is the King, we have to do what he says.

[Sacha]

Unless you get a new king, of course ;D

[Chenier]

Personally, I'll take a border war over a long-range war any day of the week. Sending out an army on a 3 week campaign to the other side of the island can be fun, but not if it's the only thing you do.

An enemy at the gate is more interesting than an enemy a week away.

However, if your enemy is a week away, why would you attack your ally next door? Odds are that the enemy probably won't even offer you lasting friendship, so you'd just be making enemies out of everyone.

Closer wars are *generally* preferable. Not in all cases, however. I don't see much of a point in punishing those stuck with less than optimal warfare opportunities. There will be unrest amongst the nobles anyways, I've seen it years ago in many places. People get fed up fast of a boring war, against their ruler mostly and against their military leaders.

Honestly, if all you do is march for a week and then stare at an enemy and return, you probably suck. As a military leader, I know that my army's activity levels depend on how much fun the nobles in it are having with the war, so I always do my best to make what we do as interesting as possible for them regardless of how close or far the enemy is.

[Sacha]

Yes, and no matter how you twist and turn it, long range wars are less interesting than border wars. And if you're so locked by your own diplomacy that you can't find wars unless you travel half the continent first, then you have to take the downsides as well. You already get the massive advantage of your borders being safe, what more do you want?

[Chenier]

Yes, and no matter how you twist and turn it, long range wars are less interesting than border wars. And if you're so locked by your own diplomacy that you can't find wars unless you travel half the continent first, then you have to take the downsides as well. You already get the massive advantage of your borders being safe, what more do you want?

And civil dissent if your war isn't popular.

Because, you know, players are capable of doing something against rulers that are boring them? We don't need the game to tutor us with every little thing we do, forcing us to do it a particular way every single time?

Border wars are *typically* more interesting than long-range wars. Not always. If you declare war on your neighbor just because you can, instead of on someone far away because of historical/cultural/religious issues, there are good odds that you can make that long-distance war a lot more interesting than you could make that border war. And sometimes, someone's only neighbors (if they have more than one) are all vastly stronger to them: there's no fun in committing blatant suicide, just because it's more convenient to fight closer than it is farther. To penalize long-distance wars purely because they are long-distance is to make unfun some wars that would have otherwise been fun, quite possible more fun than the alternative.

There is plenty people can do IG against people that are preventing them from having fun. We don't need the game to take our hand every step of the way.

[fodder]

so what happens, if you partial pay your men, then get them killed?

[Sypher]

so what happens, if you partial pay your men, then get them killed?

Well if they are all dead, no one to pay right? I'm not going to sprinkle gold on their corpses to help them in the afterlife.

edit:
hmm, I wouldn't partial pay my men if I expected all of them to die in battle though... save that for recruiting a new unit.

[Velax]

Has YOUR boss ever done that to you?

I dunno, if my boss came to me and said "Sorry, but I don't have enough money to pay your full wages this week. I can either pay you 95% of your wage now and the rest when we get more money next week, or I can pay you nothing now and all of it next week."

If I have a family to feed, I know which I'd take.

[De-Legro]

I dunno, if my boss came to me and said "Sorry, but I don't have enough money to pay your full wages this week. I can either pay you 95% of your wage now and the rest when we get more money next week, or I can pay you nothing now and all of it next week."

If I have a family to feed, I know which I'd take.

Presuming you can be confident that the boss, who has already failed to deliver on his promises can actually manage to deliver at all. Otherwise you would probably be looking for new employment.

[Velax]

In which case, my option is still better. That way I get 95% of one week's pay before I have to look for a new job. Your way, I get nothing.

[MaleMaldives]

What about an auto payment option that pays your troops and/or paraphernalia the day before you won't have enough gold to to pay them any longer?