What if looting was an active decision? Occupied province, new button on the building screen to loot the countryside. Destroys a building(s) and gives some fraction of the cost of the building. Preferrably does NOT COST MP. NO MANA.
Looting Suggestion II
- Thread starter spinoza013
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
How about a time cost? The unit is 'locked' out of your control until looting is complete.
you stole and adapted my joke! Preposterous!
Sidenote: provinces harvested all year long, filled granaries and barns all year long. So a refill of all riches in 6 months isn't unheard of.
Maybe the looting interval should have been 2 years or so, instead of 6 months.
It still feels like the current change is to prevent micromanaging fetishists like me to loot behind enemy lines
But I DO acknowledge most players don't like it, and that some sort of change was needed.
Can I do a suggestion Wiz? KEEP the old system, but enable looting ONLY for provinces that are NEXT to an occupied province, or occupied provinces itself (they are being loted automatically) It would be good fix, and actually historically accurate.
And for hordes, keep the old system entirely, but change the looting interval to 2 years or more
I think that would be good compromise. If you are interested in negotiations
Old system is not coming back. We might make a new system.
Make looting cost admin points you say? OK.
What I'd like is a system combining current EUIV and CKII mechanics. Every province would have a loot bar, which would decrease when an army moves onto the province, and as they stay there.
But instead of directly going into your treasury, the looting would first go towards paying off the maintenance of your units in the province, and reducing attrition. Cavalry/hordes would get a gain to looting efficiency (more money and/or more maintenance paid per looted ducat), so that you could actually make good money by employing bands of horseback raiders. Large mixed/infantry armies, however, would mostly be concerned with supplying themselves. Once the loot bar runs out, attrition would rise, and you'd have to start paying full maintenance again.
Completing a siege would give you the full yearly basetax, or even more, to represent the sack of whatever city/cities were being protected by the fortifications, and to allow large non-cav armies to make some economic gain.
Overall, this would make a distinction between campaigns of looting and campaigns of normal warfare, with different advantages and uses in different scenarios (or, if you can support a large enough army, encourage you to build supplementary cavalry armies to raid your enemy's countryside while your main force is concentrating on the important sieges).
But instead of directly going into your treasury, the looting would first go towards paying off the maintenance of your units in the province, and reducing attrition. Cavalry/hordes would get a gain to looting efficiency (more money and/or more maintenance paid per looted ducat), so that you could actually make good money by employing bands of horseback raiders. Large mixed/infantry armies, however, would mostly be concerned with supplying themselves. Once the loot bar runs out, attrition would rise, and you'd have to start paying full maintenance again.
Completing a siege would give you the full yearly basetax, or even more, to represent the sack of whatever city/cities were being protected by the fortifications, and to allow large non-cav armies to make some economic gain.
Overall, this would make a distinction between campaigns of looting and campaigns of normal warfare, with different advantages and uses in different scenarios (or, if you can support a large enough army, encourage you to build supplementary cavalry armies to raid your enemy's countryside while your main force is concentrating on the important sieges).
Arumba, why do you have to go and give him terrible ideas.
I think looting should generate monarch points!
I don't disagree that an active decision (or even a passive one) would do looting good. I still like my idea on an oppposite of forced march, where the army moves slower(only in lootable provinces, like to opposite of a road network) and reinforces men and morale faster (again, only in non-friendly land). Looting could probably increase attrition, because looting armies are more spread out and vulerable to gurilla attacks from plebs and garrison.
Basicly, an army that wants to loot wouldn't be able to outrun a chasing garrison unless the looters had horses and didn't have infantry to slow them down, though morale would be high because of all the booty.
On a related note, here's an idea for new national ideas; army movement speed modifier. Either for hostile troops on your land, for your troops on enemy land, or friendly troops on your land. It's about as anti-fun as attrition, but even in small doses it could make up a maneuver pip so you can catch those jerks. This can be a way to buff or nerf hordes, too!
I haven't because the game is already easy as it is. The last thing I need is yet another advantage over the AI that it cannot really replicate.
Indeed it was an extra part of war and was one of the few ways in which a smaller force could divert a larger force from the front line.
Not having looting has definitely reduced the fun of fighting.
The best system I can think of would work is:
- Toggle button like for force March
- Troop speed = Base troop speed x (Supply limitx0.8 - Army size) / (Supply Limitx0.8)
- Max troop speed is same as forced march
- This means that small armies will be hard to chase down (Meaning that a larger force would need to be committed to fight them)
- Also means that having a large army looting has draw backs
- Does not cost MP point (armies like looting)
- Cant be un toggled till in friendly territory
Possible additions:
- Money is not put into territory till returned to friendly territory
- Looting has a bar like CK2
If you want to make it easier for small force to operate than it already was then as counter-point the size of the force should be affecting just how much it can loot, to balance it out. Both logically and in terms of risk/reward there's no reason why 1k group would be able to loot as much as 10k group.
If you try to give large looting army drawback while small units have nothing but advantages, then it only means the most sensible tactic is to break that large looting force into a few smaller units and siege multiple provinces simultaneously for minimized risk and maximized profit.
