Discipline reduces looting rate

[andreihaiducul]

Discipline has become a little inflated in recent patches, and it might be a good idea to counter-balance it a bit by making it reduce looting rate.

I'd also like to see armies loot in your own provinces if they surpass the supply limit, and in this case very high discipline would reduce or remove this self-damage.

 

[BrokenSky]

If supply were tied more to the loot bar, having low discipline would lead to raiding being a better style of combat, while high discipline forces would use a more coordinated, rigorous style. Seiges etc. I think that this sounds awesome.

Might be worth putting in a "raiding" CB though. Get warscore from taking more loot, and allies are less likely to be called in on either side, but taking provinces is a hell of a lot more expensive; like 10 times as much or so.

 

[GiftGruen]

I think you misinterpret what discipline stands for. Discipline is your soldiers' ability to keep ranks, fight as a group, use group tactics and respond to commands issued to them by their division's leader even when they're engaged in combat. It is however not your soldiers' ability to keep themselves from committing atrocities in a sacked city, pillaging, raping and burning at their hearts' desires. Even highly disciplined armies (in battle) were often allowed to do all the latter in a city that did not surrender but had to be taken by force.

And every army that moved through enemy territory relied on looting the nearby farms and silos for food. So if anything, high discipline is beneficial for looting speed since it means there is some sort of good organisation in the army that might also make looting more efficient.

 

[andreihaiducul]

I think you misinterpret what discipline stands for. Discipline is your soldiers' ability to keep ranks, fight as a group, use group tactics and respond to commands issued to them by their division's leader even when they're engaged in combat. It is however not your soldiers' ability to keep themselves from committing atrocities in a sacked city, pillaging, raping and burning at their hearts' desires.

I do not accept your narrow definition of discipline - it extends beyond the battlefield. There are examples in history where undisciplined troops looted and pillaged when they shouldn't have (ex 1), and particularly due to surpassing the local supply limit (ex 2). A weaker example would be the sack of Constantinopole, where the tired crusaders left without solid leadership raped & pillaged, while the Venetians didn't (to the same extent).

And every army that moved through enemy territory relied on looting the nearby farms and silos for food.

Yes, this is the mechanic that already exists in game and for which I suggest a minor trade-off.

So if anything, high discipline is beneficial for looting speed since it means there is some sort of good organisation in the army that might also make looting more efficient.

Strongly disagree.

 

[aQuilaSwe]

Strongly disagree.

Well, as you argued the French troops under Napoleon was very disciplined and under the direction of Napoleon the French troops became experts at estimating the ability of an area to support an army and developed skills in locating supplies in areas where other armies would have quickly starved if forced to live off the land.

 

[andreihaiducul]

Well, I would say that the French troops under Napoleon was very disciplined and under the direction of Napoleon the French troops became expert at estimating the ability of an area to support an army and developed skills in locating supplies in areas where other armies would have quickly starved if forced to live off the land.

Yes, I agree, but I equate those skills to the in-game abilities and policies that reduce attrition rate (such as "Improved foraging" from defensive). In the wiki link above, it says that foreign regiments attached to the French army pillaged and they presumably had lower discipline, too.

 

[aQuilaSwe]

Yes, I agree, but I equate those skills to the in-game abilities and policies that reduce attrition rate (such as "Improved foraging" from defensive). In the wiki link above, it says that foreign regiments attached to the French army pillaged and they presumably had lower discipline, too.

Yes, that is true and I could make the same argument given that e.g. hordes have better looting efficiency.

Pillaging almost always happened in war in such situations during that time period and I still agree with GifGruen #3 about what the Discipline stands for in game.

 

[GiftGruen]

I understand the money you get from looting as the money you get for selling everything the soldiers in a raiding party gave you. After all, the money and valuables your soldiers keep to themselves do not go into the treasury. And soldiers who go out in bunches of 10 and find 20 things of value will most probably keep some of these things for themselves. The money from looting is just the part they found and also gave to the army. And I imagine that without competent (any?) command during the Sack of Rome, all the valuables the soldiers stole remained in their hands, so no big loot for Charles V or Austria or HRE or whatever. Your other example mentions that the deserters terrorized the population, looting everything they found. So what would a nation's treasury have from their deserters getting rich?

So undisciplined troops can do a lot of damage to the wealth of a province, but will not benefit the leader of the army they are part of, monetarily. Disciplined troops on the other hand will only loot and raid when they are told, and then they have to hand over a considerable part of what they found because it would attract attention if they didn't.

 

[BrokenSky]

I understand the money you get from looting as the money you get for selling everything the soldiers in a raiding party gave you. After all, the money and valuables your soldiers keep to themselves do not go into the treasury. And soldiers who go out in bunches of 10 and find 20 things of value will most probably keep some of these things for themselves. The money from looting is just the part they found and also gave to the army. And I imagine that without competent (any?) command during the Sack of Rome, all the valuables the soldiers stole remained in their hands, so no big loot for Charles V or Austria or HRE or whatever. Your other example mentions that the deserters terrorized the population, looting everything they found. So what would a nation's treasury have from their deserters getting rich?

So undisciplined troops can do a lot of damage to the wealth of a province, but will not benefit the leader of the army they are part of, monetarily. Disciplined troops on the other hand will only loot and raid when they are told, and then they have to hand over a considerable part of what they found because it would attract attention if they didn't.

Should discipline then give you better looting efficiency? How about if having low looting efficiency gave you bonus morale to an army after it'd looted based on the inefficiency/? That might be hard to implement though..

 

[GiftGruen]

There is no such thing as looting efficiency. If there was, discipline should definitely increase it, so disciplined troops give you more loot for less province wealth lost. I like the idea of the army being happier about their loot though. After all, everything they keep is basically extra pay.

 

[aQuilaSwe]

There is no such thing as looting efficiency. If there was, discipline should definitely increase it, so disciplined troops give you more loot for less province wealth lost. I like the idea of the army being happier about their loot though. After all, everything they keep is basically extra pay.

http://www.eu4wiki.com/Steppe_hordes
Fine, it is called looting speed and not efficiency. My bad.

 

[aQuilaSwe]

While I disagree with the reasoning behind having Discipline reduce looting speed, it could introduce some interesting gameplay trade offs.

Lets assume an increase in Discipline also reduces looting speed. The result would be less money from looting but also less damage from attrition due to supply limit staying higher longer. But by "keeping the reigns tight", i.e. not letting you troops loot, you also get a temporary morale penalty.

 

[GiftGruen]

My intention was not to correct you. I thought that a concept of looting efficiency could be a worthwhile addition for the game, for disciplined troops, while looting speed should be unaffected. So I wanted to make a distinction between them, not be the grammar nazi.

 

[aQuilaSwe]

My intention was not to correct you. I thought that a concept of looting efficiency could be a worthwhile addition for the game, for disciplined troops, while looting speed should be unaffected. So I wanted to make a distinction between them, not be the grammar nazi.

Ahaa, ok. The thing though is that the in-game ability "looting speed" more or less is looting efficiency or strength since what it does is increase the loot taken at the monthly tick and NOT how fast the looting itself occurs.

 

[Scottx105]

I do not accept your narrow definition of discipline - it extends beyond the battlefield. There are examples in history where undisciplined troops looted and pillaged when they shouldn't have (ex 1), and particularly due to surpassing the local supply limit (ex 2). A weaker example would be the sack of Constantinopole, where the tired crusaders left without solid leadership raped & pillaged, while the Venetians didn't (to the same extent).

You can also view this another way, what if a commander of a disciplined force ordered his men to loot, pillage and burn a settlement? Your taking the term of discipline too
literally as if it changes what a man may do, in EU4 and in most cases discipline stands for if you men are willing to follow orders, if they are then your men are said to be disciplined in following the orders of their commander, or disciplined in line formation or whatever. That does not necessarily mean that just because they are disciplined that they are bad at looting, and may generally loot if they are ordered to. But fine, if you want it like the way you described it then lets have it as such, undisciplined forces that capture a province have a 5% chance to reduce a provinces development by 1 per day and gain a 50% increase in gold looted from that province, however you will also suffer high levels of attrition (some of your forces will leave with their loot) and the enemy will gain an event which stacks per province looted, giving them increased manpower, reduced war exhaustion and cheaper units due to angry citizens of their nation wanting revenge for their homes ect being looted by the enemy.