Toning Down Looting - War Rebalancing

[loren]

I personally think it's time that the effects of looting on realm control be seriously reconsidered.  It greatly bothered me when I observed on the outside the war between Ibladesh and Perdan/Caligus (and to a lesser extent Carelia v CE) that it appeared that realms simply didn't care about gaining lands directly anymore, they would instead just put to the torch everything of their enemies.  As it stands, this tactic seems to have disproportionately gained adherents simply because it is so effective.  This is amplified even more by the fact that many realms have difficulty simply getting enough characters to hold on to what they already have.  Why bother taking over a region you know you won't be able to control if you can just deny its use to your enemy with much greater ease.

If you look at this type of warfare you see that its actually much more in line with the incredibly modern ideas of asymmetric warfare and scorched earth warfare of Sherman (yes yes the Romans et al would salt the earth of Carthage etc, but that is something much more permanent than what BM simulates).  So the question becomes then, should the game mechanics push you towards trying to deny your enemy the use of lands, rather than taking them over for yourself from the outset.  I've heard people say in the past that it is ultimately harder in the end to actually control lands that you've really done some hurt to, and that may be true, but (and it's a big one) people have rightly figured out that if you simply beat your opponents into submission and destroy their ability to fight, you can take your time assimilating new regions into your realm. Hell it actually works in your favor given the scarcity of characters to fill estates.  By taking your time you can slowly accumulate new characters to fill the spaces as your gold/noble increases.

In summary, the paucity of people to fill estates, and the overbalanced effects of looting have changed the nature of BM warfare away from outright territorial gain to one of area denial.  I find this change to make the game quite a bit less fun, and actually damaging to the spirit of the game.  Whereas before new nobles might hope to prove themselves in battle and be rewarded with the acquisition of new functioning lands, they must instead grind away at their foes, and then grind away at repairing the damage they have caused to the lands they desired.

[Marlboro]

On Dwilight they're experimenting with new types of takeovers, including peaceful ones which discourage looting. Haven't had a shot to try 'em out yet ('cause the Zuma beat me up right before I could click the button) but I think it's in line with what you're suggesting. Either way though I agree, it is kind of lame to just continuously raze the same region over and over again until neither side can really hold it without sitting a few dozen nobles in it and having them do police work for weeks.

[egamma]

I remember, way back in 2007-2008, Hulaferd got down to 140 peasant population, just from repeated TO's between Wetham and the Assassins.

[Velax]

So you want to push people toward a style of play you think is better by punishing them for playing the way they want to? Wasn't a simiilar discussion had a while ago about punishing "undesirable" actions rather than rewarding "desirable" ones?

Why bother taking over a region you know you won't be able to control...

Nothing you've said changes what you stated right there. It doesnt matter how much you "tone down" looting, people won't take regions they can't control, and they *especially* won't take regions they know they'll lose the next time they have to leave it to refit.

[egamma]

the new estate and new TO systems combined should encourage more "land-taking" wars, rather than scorched earth. Let's see how things play out once those get pushed to stable.

[D`Este]

We still burn and loot lands in Fissoa, because we want to do damage to the realm and we will take care of a take over after the war if we want any lands.. So it's not like the new estate/takeover system has to change anything

[Lorgan]

Fissoa really is a salt the earth situation for my character though. Maybe others will tone him down, maybe they won't, but if it's up to him, Fissoa will be nothing but a wasteland at the end of this war.

That being said, scorch the earth as a defensive tactic may be modern (though I'm not even sure about that) but looting was VERY widespread in medieval times. It actually got so out of hand with people all over Europe suffering that the Church intervened and tried to set some rules for warfare.

Anyway, the new estate system already makes conquest a lot more attractive but it remains a choice.

[mikm]

Pherhaps some risks should be added to looting. Like let's say loss of soldiers, injury and even capture.
Looting is similar to certain infiltrator actions, and well they risk capture no matter what they do, no matter where they do it.
I mean capture in a rogue rgion with a population of 10 and no units of any kind around. That is just crazy.

[Chenier]

If anything, looting needs to be MORE damaging.

Recuperating from looting, with a lord and courtier present, is pretty easy.

And if you can neither war for land NOR loot, then why go to war at all?

[Anaris]

I would like to rebalance looting, so that it's less of a "loot the region using whatever option until it's a wasteland and it hates everybody" thing, and more of a "pick whether you want to destroy the region's infrastructure or terrorize the populace" thing.

This will require some changes that aren't going to come quickly, but we have discussed some things in this vein over the past year or so among the devs.

[Chenier]

I would like to rebalance looting, so that it's less of a "loot the region using whatever option until it's a wasteland and it hates everybody" thing, and more of a "pick whether you want to destroy the region's infrastructure or terrorize the populace" thing.

This will require some changes that aren't going to come quickly, but we have discussed some things in this vein over the past year or so among the devs.

In the pre-fourth invasion Enweil vs. Rio war, we did a lot of targeting specific things, be them recruitment centres or food supplies.

Though the difference never was that huge, it's always been possible to pick between a higher focus on production or on morale (pillage and maraud vs. murder/rape, for example).

[Anaris]

In the pre-fourth invasion Enweil vs. Rio war, we did a lot of targeting specific things, be them recruitment centres or food supplies.

Though the difference never was that huge, it's always been possible to pick between a higher focus on production or on morale (pillage and maraud vs. murder/rape, for example).

Oh, right, I almost forgot:

There are also ideas floating around about making it much easier to damage recruitment centers to the point that they cannot be used for a period of time, without having the centers be completely destroyed and lost forever.

[Indirik]

Which is a great idea. Disabling buildings rather than destroying is preferable in many cases.

[Chenier]

Oh, right, I almost forgot:

There are also ideas floating around about making it much easier to damage recruitment centers to the point that they cannot be used for a period of time, without having the centers be completely destroyed and lost forever.

Oh, that'd be pretty sweet.

As long as there's both. All of these RCs in Rio we wanted destroyed forever. Those in Grehk or Rines wouldn't have been targetted because there's much more strategic things that can be done in cities.

Actually, I have a hard time thinking of when one would want to temporarily disable a recruitment centre, unless it's super easy and lasts super long, other than in those cases of special 95-5/95/95 SF centres (anyone who destroys one of these deserves to be hung!).

[Anaris]

Oh, that'd be pretty sweet.

As long as there's both. All of these RCs in Rio we wanted destroyed forever. Those in Grehk or Rines wouldn't have been targetted because there's much more strategic things that can be done in cities.

I believe part of the plan was to have it still be quite possible to destroy RCs, but make it somewhat harder than it is now.

Actually, I have a hard time thinking of when one would want to temporarily disable a recruitment centre, unless it's super easy and lasts super long, other than in those cases of special 95-5/95/95 SF centres (anyone who destroys one of these deserves to be hung!).

Well, sure, if you're thinking about disabling one RC.

But what if you could send your looting force through their lands and disable 80% of their RCs for a week?