Toning Down Looting - War Rebalancing

[Chenier]

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.

Harder? Destroying RCs is a slow process, and RCs can be insta-repaired by paying to enlarge them. Meanwhile, that kind of looting does basically no collateral damage whatsoever. Unless you know you will fight a very long war of attrition, targetting RCs is rarely a viable strategy as it is now.

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?

If you have the capacity to waltz through the enemy's lands and reach 80% of their RCs before needing to refit/retreat, then you can likely just waltz into the enemy capital and get it over with.

Most realms' fortified cities are where the find both the most centres, and the largest centres. You will typically not be able to target these centres until you basically won the war. The loss of the ability to recruit from the other RCs is mostly felt long-term, so you'd need to be able to consistently shut them down on a regular basis.

Some realms do have poor RC selection in their fortified locations, though, which would make them much more vulnerable to this kind of thing.

Overall, it'd depend on the ratio of how much time it takes to shut down an RC and much time the effect would last.

If it was easy, our looting army would probably have used the temporary one while the main army used the permanent one, given how the looting army was way too small to hope being able to destroy RCs by itself.

[Indirik]

Harder? Destroying RCs is a slow process, and RCs can be insta-repaired by paying to enlarge them.

I didn't think it was all that hard. Toupellon waltzed into OW and tore up all the RCS in four regions in under a week. And enlarging them costs gold, and require the lord to be there.

If you have the capacity to waltz through the enemy's lands and reach 80% of their RCs before needing to refit/retreat, then you can likely just waltz into the enemy capital and get it over with.

True...

[Chenier]

I didn't think it was all that hard. Toupellon waltzed into OW and tore up all the RCS in four regions in under a week. And enlarging them costs gold, and require the lord to be there.

How many was "all"?

Because when I measure time it takes, it's compared to time it takes to destroy a region's stats. Because unlike normal looting, which will destroy a ton of food, destroy the income, and potentially lower the control enough to temporarily disable the RCs and maybe even make the region revolt, the only thing you'll ever get out of attacking RCs is maybe destroying RCs.

If the option to permanently destroy RCs is made harder, then pillage and maraud becomes much more worth it.

[Indirik]

Five or six, I think. Not sure, I wasn't there for the whole thing. I know of at least three in two regions, plus more in another region or two. Call it five, minimum.

Also, we were intentionally only targeting the RCs. We didn't want to drive the regions rogue, or even inflict general mayhem. We wanted to remove their ability to make war with as little collateral damage as possible.

[Chenier]

Five or six, I think. Not sure, I wasn't there for the whole thing. I know of at least three in two regions, plus more in another region or two. Call it five, minimum.

Also, we were intentionally only targeting the RCs. We didn't want to drive the regions rogue, or even inflict general mayhem. We wanted to remove their ability to make war with as little collateral damage as possible.

That's not bad.

I disagree with your strategy, though. Collateral damage is the best way to prevent one from being able to go to war.

[loren]

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 [sic] discussion had a while ago about punishing "undesirable" actions rather than rewarding "desirable" ones?

Altering the game mechanics in no way punishes people.  As I clearly stated in my preamble we need to reconsider (in my opinion) the effects of looting on realm control.  People can still damage the regions production, make morale go way down, damage recruitment centers etc.  But it should in my opinion have a lowered effect on realm control.  Looking at a map and seeing huge boarder regions that are just rogue rubs me the wrong way.

The 'power' game reasons for wanting it to stay the same are pretty obvious.  It allows you to quickly do lasting damage that is cumulative over time.  This isn't true of abandoned take over attempts.  So from a military standpoint yes, deny your enemy the use of their lands.  But that type of warfare isn't something that really fits BM's frame of reference.  Looting in the medieval world by and large did not effect political control such that regions would just declare they had no lords.

[Chenier]

Altering the game mechanics in no way punishes people.  As I clearly stated in my preamble we need to reconsider (in my opinion) the effects of looting on realm control.  People can still damage the regions production, make morale go way down, damage recruitment centers etc.  But it should in my opinion have a lowered effect on realm control.  Looking at a map and seeing huge boarder regions that are just rogue rubs me the wrong way.

The 'power' game reasons for wanting it to stay the same are pretty obvious.  It allows you to quickly do lasting damage that is cumulative over time.  This isn't true of abandoned take over attempts.  So from a military standpoint yes, deny your enemy the use of their lands.  But that type of warfare isn't something that really fits BM's frame of reference.  Looting in the medieval world by and large did not effect political control such that regions would just declare they had no lords.

Your arguments are sound.

I wouldn't mind looting having less effect on control, as long as their damage is longer-lasting.

I actually quite like the idea of a large realm having all of its regions at 0% production without everything revolting.

[loren]

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.

It seems to me that while it make encourage it, the changes will not alter the fundamental calculus of simply denying your enemies their lands, and then later after they are utterly defeated rebuilding.  It means that looting has an even greater tactical effect, but the same strategic effect.  Ultimately the grand strategy of turning as many regions rogue as possible will remain as the balances is tilted too heavily in its favor.

[Chenier]

It seems to me that while it make encourage it, the changes will not alter the fundamental calculus of simply denying your enemies their lands, and then later after they are utterly defeated rebuilding.  It means that looting has an even greater tactical effect, but the same strategic effect.  Ultimately the grand strategy of turning as many regions rogue as possible will remain as the balances is tilted too heavily in its favor.

A few things enter into the calculation of whether to loot or do a TO.

1) the location of the region. One can't TO a region that doesn't border one's own realm.
2) the duration of a TO vs. looting a region rogue. If looting it rogue is quicker, it encourages to do looting in order to take the financial and infrastructure benefits from the enemy as quickly as possible. If a TO is about as long or shorter, then a TO is encouraged because not only it takes the bonuses away from the enemy, but it grants them to your own realm
3) the number of nobles. While the new system put much less of a limit on growth than the last one, it still caps to a minimum of 1 noble per region. Small realms sometimes already have 1 noble per region. And I'm far from convinced that 1 city and 1 rural, with both of them having just their lord, produces as much wealth (due to efficiency) as having 1 city alone, with a lord and knight. Also, the closer your noble/realm ratio approaches 1, the less likely you would be able to properly repair and protect your new acquisition.
4) the time available: Sometimes you want to be able to abort half-way and still have caused lasting damage, or otherwise be able to leave as soon as you are done. Looting allows this, takeovers don't (as much).

[fodder]

Harder? Destroying RCs is a slow process, and RCs can be insta-repaired by paying to enlarge them.

so make it impossible to enlarge without repairing them 1st.
---
mind you.. bit silly not to have it maxed already. having to shrink it then enlarge to repair? expensive...

eg... my lvl 2 sf cost 1k to up to lvl 3..

[Chenier]

so make it impossible to enlarge without repairing them 1st.

But there's no way to repair them otherwise, as it is.

And if you just do this without adding one, then you'd doom good RCs that were stuck in regions with starvation for too long.

[fodder]

if going down that route, would probably need rework the whole building thing... i'd rather them stay as 0% than destroyed through dodgy production...

[Velax]

People can still damage the regions production, make morale go way down, damage recruitment centers etc.  But it should in my opinion have a lowered effect on realm control.  Looking at a map and seeing huge boarder [sic] regions that are just rogue rubs me the wrong way.

So if, under your proposed change, you can still heavily damage a region to the point that it's a burden on your enemy (low production and therefore small harvests, but still a relatively large population), how will this encourage people to do takeovers rather than looting?

[Indirik]

There are a couple things in the new estates that will help, I think. Most importantly is that realms will be able to control more land, and thus will want to take it. The newly conquered border regions will be easier to integrate into your realm. They won't be revolting the next turn do to lack of lords and knight.

[Chenier]

There are a couple things in the new estates that will help, I think. Most importantly is that realms will be able to control more land, and thus will want to take it. The newly conquered border regions will be easier to integrate into your realm. They won't be revolting the next turn do to lack of lords and knight.

Is there any incentives to have more than 1 region per noble?