This is a suggestion that comes from a thread where people were complaining of unrealistically-sized armies floating around the New World. ex: 50k+ troops in the 16th Century. It would also be an appropriate fix for armies floating around the world and showing up in the Indian Ocean, Pacific, etc., far outside of normal range of a nation to support logistically.
My suggestion is to rework land maintenance using "supply lines" based upon trade zones.
Traders would likely now be shuffled around to put armies back into "supply."
The net effect would likely be that nations that wanted to campaign on the far side of the world would either have to a) incur debts and absorb manpower losses for campaigning so far afield, b) limit their overseas ventures to smaller and more affordable/acceptable-loss forces, or c) stick within their logistical limitations.
Over time, as trade ranges increase and there would be more traders on the map, some nations like Portugal would be advantaged and capable to go, say, to Asia on an unbroken chain of trade zones.
Even these ventures would be more costly.
I am certain some people might find the above very punishing, especially for small nations called into continent-spanning wars. It might lead to "sitzkriegs" where nations refuse to move towards each other due to supply costs. It would also lead to more bankruptcies for nations that overran their costs. Yet something akin to this, along with revised AI to take logistical range into effect, is desirable for people who don't want to see, say, Mutapa campaigning in London in 1586.
My suggestion is to rework land maintenance using "supply lines" based upon trade zones.
- If you were in your own territories, they should cost the least to maintain (normal maintenance).
- If outside your nation, but within a trade node with a trader of your nation, a little more. (+10%) This makes it somewhat expensive, but not excessively so, to go campaigning outside your own territory.
- If they were stationed in a trade zone within trade range, but with no trader of your nation, even more. (+25% maintanance)
- If they were stationed outside of your trade range entirely, they should cost the most to support, and suffer monthly attrition, even during peacetime. (+100% maintenance cost; base 5% attrition)
Traders would likely now be shuffled around to put armies back into "supply."
The net effect would likely be that nations that wanted to campaign on the far side of the world would either have to a) incur debts and absorb manpower losses for campaigning so far afield, b) limit their overseas ventures to smaller and more affordable/acceptable-loss forces, or c) stick within their logistical limitations.
Over time, as trade ranges increase and there would be more traders on the map, some nations like Portugal would be advantaged and capable to go, say, to Asia on an unbroken chain of trade zones.
Even these ventures would be more costly.
I am certain some people might find the above very punishing, especially for small nations called into continent-spanning wars. It might lead to "sitzkriegs" where nations refuse to move towards each other due to supply costs. It would also lead to more bankruptcies for nations that overran their costs. Yet something akin to this, along with revised AI to take logistical range into effect, is desirable for people who don't want to see, say, Mutapa campaigning in London in 1586.
Upvote
0