peasants prevent looting

[Jens Namtrah]

I posted about this before, but can't find the thread or I would just reuse it..

This "peasants prevent looting" has really got to be seriously tweaked.

Again, 90 peasants are preventing 1180 armed fighting men from looting over and over and over.

there is no way you can explain this with "in game reality" and it messes with strategies when they appear on the 2nd or 3rd loot and then stop 90% of the actions of all the enemy forces.

[MaleMaldives]

It might make more sense that when a certain amount of looting happens a consistent largish fraction of the population takes up arms, but  Nobles can still loot to the end of the turn. Then if the peasants win the battle they will have successfully prevented the enemy forces from future looting till the peasants get beat or the peasant militia dissolves. Large armies will have still have no problem and cause destruction faster. Small looting bands will have to move on after looting too much. Perhaps also make peasants mixed infantry as they probable would be. Also make them have a bit better stats as they get slaughtered! I mean they are peasants, but out of 300 hundred peasants you think there would be a decent amount of jacked workers with an ax to kill more then just 1 enemy troop.

[vonGenf]

... it messes with strategies when they appear on the 2nd or 3rd loot and then stop 90% of the actions of all the enemy forces.

You can argue that it's not realistic (I agree), but not that it messes up with strategy. It's always been like this. Even 1 peasant can stop a looting attempt. If your strategy doesn't take this into account, it's not suitable to BM fighting.

[Chenier]

You can argue that it's not realistice (I agree), but not that it messes up with strategy. It's always been like this. Even 1 peasant can stop a looting attempt. If your strategy doesn't take this into account, it's not suitable to BM fighting.

True, but people have forever been annoyed when incredibly small numbers of peasants prevent large armies from looting.

[Stormbringer]

I just think it's HILARIOUS to imagine 45 starving farmers preventing any army from doing anything they want.  It's idiotic, to be honest.

[De-Legro]

I posted about this before, but can't find the thread or I would just reuse it..

This "peasants prevent looting" has really got to be seriously tweaked.

Again, 90 peasants are preventing 1180 armed fighting men from looting over and over and over.

there is no way you can explain this with "in game reality" and it messes with strategies when they appear on the 2nd or 3rd loot and then stop 90% of the actions of all the enemy forces.

While not realistic it serves a balance purpose in limiting the amount of damage to a region that is possible in one turn. Maybe it needs to be tweaked in how quickly it appears, but I doubt it, sometime it occurs very early in looting, most the time it doesn't. It would be nice if the amount of peasants was relative to the army, but then in rural regions facing large armies, the region would soon be depopulated when large amounts of peasants are killed at the end of every turn, kind of ruining the whole balance aspect the code is supposed to provide.

Mind you I can't explain instant messages within the "in game reality" fortunately it is a game, so things like this can be implemented for game play reasons.

[MaleMaldives]

While not realistic it serves a balance purpose in limiting the amount of damage to a region that is possible in one turn. Maybe it needs to be tweaked in how quickly it appears, but I doubt it, sometime it occurs very early in looting, most the time it doesn't. It would be nice if the amount of peasants was relative to the army, but then in rural regions facing large armies, the region would soon be depopulated when large amounts of peasants are killed at the end of every turn, kind of ruining the whole balance aspect the code is supposed to provide.

Mind you I can't explain instant messages within the "in game reality" fortunately it is a game, so things like this can be implemented for game play reasons.

I have noticed that when first an army starts looting a region the first turn peasants don't come up for a long time, but all sequential turns the peasants come up a lot quicker.  Though it is a balance issue to me it is the most annoying one. You could have the damage done by looting reduced somewhat  as it seems even with the peasants stopping the looting concentrated effort can wreck non cities stats fast. Then it just become waiting around slaughtering peasants which makes no sense they would get themselves killed like that. It might be better if when peasants rise up it is something like all the peasants rise to defend their lands which only lasts till the end of the turn, and their is no battle. That way you only kill a regions population if you starve them out, or choose to rape and kill.

[Norrel]

You could just change the flavor message from "you can't loot due to peasant resistance" to "you can't loot because everything that is left has been hidden, try again later"?

[egamma]

You could just change the flavor message from "you can't loot due to peasant resistance" to "you can't loot because everything that is left has been hidden, try again later"?

That's an interesting idea--make the looting take more and more hours.

Personally, I think my forces should be able to fight those peasants immediately, not at turn change, just my unit against them. If I win, I get to loot--and the battle itself uses an additional hour.

[Chenier]

That's an interesting idea--make the looting take more and more hours.

Personally, I think my forces should be able to fight those peasants immediately, not at turn change, just my unit against them. If I win, I get to loot--and the battle itself uses an additional hour.

Indeed, much like looting temples.

[Indirik]

That's enough with the bickering, insults and other crap. Everything that needs to be said in this has been said. I'm locking and cleaning this.