only cosmetic. seriously, is there ANYOEN here that can start and finish a war within 6 months 99% of the times? it can sometimes take over a year to gather the realm levies, let alone them going to war.
Seasonal Weather Effects: Good Idea or Potential Nuisance?
- Thread starter Kelban
- 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.
If you're considering weather, might be cool to penalize certain unit types for certain terrain types (like heavy infantry/cavalry in deserts). Would be a good simulation of historical difficulties crusaders faced as well and give more of an incentive to build towns for the light infantry.
Also, grumphie, that's why wars weren't always won in a year. No one's saying you'd have to wait till summer either, sieges often continued through winter and you could always just choose to suffer the attrition losses as your enemy would too if he tried to defend with his army.
Also, grumphie, that's why wars weren't always won in a year. No one's saying you'd have to wait till summer either, sieges often continued through winter and you could always just choose to suffer the attrition losses as your enemy would too if he tried to defend with his army.
Yeah; especially later in the game, it always takes years to win major wars, so having increased attrition during different seasons would just be a huge pain. Also, they would have to make it so that different regions had different climate effects: southern Italy has a much less severe winter than northern England.
I don't like weather effects for this reason: I think battles take longer to happen in the game than they usually did in real life. I'm guessing (educatedly) that when I have an army in a 15K on 12K major tussle (been playing in Iberia a lot lately) it can take 30-45 days to resolve. I think even 7 days is probably on the long side for how it went in real life. So, in the game, we have to field armies for a longer period of time than was actually the case. If we do not have to worry in the game about the corresponding weather effects that were actually present historically, that balances out. If we do have to worry about weather in the game, that makes fielding an army more difficult than would have historically been the case.
Yeah... the game has to to make sense, and be fun, within its own rules, not necessarily within the rules of reality.
The closer the rules get to reality, the better, but not if it means replacing fun by nonfun stuff.
The closer the rules get to reality, the better, but not if it means replacing fun by nonfun stuff.
Actually for this reason it seems like a great idea to me. This'd mostly be a problenm for larger realms, like the HRE and AI ERE. (Obviously in the ERE the player can just use speedy ships to still make decent time gathering up troops). And on the flip side help defenders or people trying to declare independence in wars due to them not having to travel as far to get to where the important action is.
Yeah, but the thing is, once you get past about 1250, all wars take over a year to complete, because fortification levels have increased far enough to make sieges last that long if your army is under the attrition limit. So even small countries (which don't really exist later in the game anyways) would be adversely impacted by weather and seasons.
Seasons for graphical reasons? I dont even play the game on terrain map mode. I play the game 99% on the independent states map mode. I use all the other map modes when i need to e.g., creating/splitting duchies, spreading religion, viewing technological outlook, to see the spread of my dynasty, and maybe to see the economic status of my realm compared to others but the terrain map mode? nope. I vote nuisance.
I'm surprised many of you guys use that thing.
I'm surprised many of you guys use that thing.
this is the reason im against it as a alrge factor. once castles are getting 1000+ garrison size on average, you aree getting forced to siege for sometimes years as the supply limit doesnt grow with it. forcing people to either take massive attrition half the year or assualt all castles and take massive attrition would break the supply limit system more than it is now, and its also not compatible with the slow pace of war, it can often take well over a year to gather the realm levies as i.e. rus.
well to avoid large percentile attrition losses during winter sieges you'd just leave a minimal siege army to maintain them. Might be a bit too much micromanaging but prob realistic.
yet, it would ruin mroe than it did good. higher mortality rates under characters during winter? al right. less income during winter+mroe income during summer? al right. making sieging 1000+garrisons even MORE annoying? hell no. 7k sieging is already terribly slow. to portrait winter accuratly it would have to reduce to 2-3k during winter. there are PLENTY of castles with 2k+ troops in it. also, where would the exess troops go? dismiss and reraise in summer only to dismiss them before doing something?
Like in EUIII there is a maintain siege button. That splits the army. Disband those not in siege for the winter. Just a suggestion.
Great idea. I would be a little sad to see it only implemented cosmetically.
But I understand the concerns with attrition that others have expressed. Perhaps events linked to weather during sieges could be a roundabout way of effecting sieges without changing attrition, etc.?
But I understand the concerns with attrition that others have expressed. Perhaps events linked to weather during sieges could be a roundabout way of effecting sieges without changing attrition, etc.?
i never played EUIII so i dont know how it works there. still, that leaves the problems of:
making waging war in late game even MORE annoying and tedious
and even more important:
the long time it takes for levies to actually reach the place theyre needed after a disbanding. if you disband the part not needed an reraise in spring, 99% chance they will be at the siege when there is less tahn a month left to siege savely
Events in winter to reflect increased attrition are the way to go. I wouldn't touch sieges nor mortality rates. It's not a simulator. But a certain basic reflection of changing seasons would be a brilliant thing!