War score!

[xGreedo]

I dont know if this has been posted before.
I just want to say something that i want to see changed! The warscore in Imperator: Rome just doesn't feel right its too easy to white peace pretty much anyone even if you are in war with 2+ great powers you can easily white peace most of them you can do that pretty fast too. Also when GP vs GP and the warscore is like 60% on one side and when you see the map they occopy like 5% of the total land owned by the opponent i find it ridiculous! This game should be more about Death wars in my opinion its fitting for the timeline.

Also about the fortresses i honestly find them in most cases useless you need only 2k troops to siege down a lvl 1 fort. thats Way too easy and annoying when facing the A.I with their 2k stacks running all over the place. What if you need 4k to siege down a lvl 1 fort and 8k for lvl 2 etc.

 

[DukeLeto42]

Also when GP vs GP and the warscore is like 60% on one side and when you see the map they occopy like 5% of the total land owned by the opponent i find it ridiculous!

And here we were getting used to complaints that battles had too little of an impact on warscore...

This game should be more about Death wars in my opinion its fitting for the timeline.

You might consider getting "winning land by the spear" to take on large powers for total conquest. The CB probably needs a partial rework itself due to carpet siege micro, but it does fit the bill. The Diadochi, of course, already begin with such a wargoal on each other.

Also about the fortresses i honestly find them in most cases useless you need only 2k troops to siege down a lvl 1 fort. thats Way too easy and annoying when facing the A.I with their 2k stacks running all over the place. What if you need 4k to siege down a lvl 1 fort and 8k for lvl 2 etc.

Absolutely not. The whole point is that you should need to build up multiple fort levels if you want a late-game enemy to be held back.

Finally, might I suggest posting on the suggestions forum? This would make it a lot easier to see if similar comments have been made before.

 

[Herennius]

Absolutely not. The whole point is that you should need to build up multiple fort levels if you want a late-game enemy to be held back.

Seconded, plus that even a 1lvl fort has its use - it is a speedbump delaying enemy progress and buying time to react, while provinces without a fort fall in no time with all associated negative consequences.

 

[Todie]

And here we were getting used to complaints that battles had too little of an impact on warscore...

Indeed. Though the more common / likely culprint is ticking warscore from controlling the wargoal province. (Unless its supremacy wargoal)

 

[IsaacCAT]

Seconded, plus that even a 1lvl fort has its use - it is a speedbump delaying enemy progress and buying time to react, while provinces without a fort fall in no time with all associated negative consequences.

Agreed but the OP is asking for more troops to assault a fort, arguing that is not powerful enough.

Balancing is though. 2000 men to assault a fort I think is reasonable, but I have no source. On the game side, I think is enough.

Players should be encouraged to upgrade their forts. IMHO when you invest 200 in founding a city you should have a 2 level fort for that city.

 

[Torugu]

This has got t be a troll, right?

Agreed but the OP is asking for more troops to assault a fort, arguing that is not powerful enough.

Balancing is though. 2000 men to assault a fort I think is reasonable, but I have no source. On the game side, I think is enough.

Players should be encouraged to upgrade their forts. IMHO when you invest 200 in founding a city you should have a 2 level fort for that city.

Leaving aside that OP has some very strange ideas about the direction the game should develop into....

You can't just increase the minimum number of soldiers needed for a level 1 fort. If you do, you also have to increase the minimum number of levies a nation can have (otherwise it would be impossible for most tribes to expand).

And that would probably mean increasing the minimum number of soldiers you can levy from a region.

All of which has a bunch of negative knock on effects which I'm not going to go into now because I think the point is already clear enough.

 

[olivenkranz]

This has got t be a troll, right?


Leaving aside that OP has some very strange ideas about the direction the game should develop into....

You can't just increase the minimum number of soldiers needed for a level 1 fort. If you do, you also have to increase the minimum number of levies a nation can have (otherwise it would be impossible for most tribes to expand).

And that would probably mean increasing the minimum number of soldiers you can levy from a region.

All of which has a bunch of negative knock on effects which I'm not going to go into now because I think the point is already clear enough.

AI-Rome goes *WC*
Diadochi-AI goes *WC*
other AI goes *dead*

 

[IsaacCAT]

You can't just increase the minimum number of soldiers needed for a level 1 fort. If you do, you also have to increase the minimum number of levies a nation can have (otherwise it would be impossible for most tribes to expand).

Agreed. Players and AI should be encouraged to upgrade their forts.

I suggest halving the cost of forts level 1 to 50, the same as a road. They look quite cheap already.

Level 2 will cost around 100 and when you found a city you get it walled for the money invested.

Level 3 and above should cost 100 each level

 

[BarbarianHunter]

Players should be encouraged to upgrade their forts. IMHO when you invest 200 in founding a city you should have a 2 level fort for that city.

I think you should get a level 1 fort and free maintenance as well. It would encourage founding cities & could be justified under the auspices of a zealous population of a formerly barbarous territory manning the fort free of cost.

 

[IsaacCAT]

I think you should get a level 1 fort and free maintenance as well. It would encourage founding cities & could be justified under the auspices of a zealous population of a formerly barbarous territory manning the fort free of cost.

that would be ridiculous! game braking and not historical or reality accurate!



I was suggesting each founded city starts with a fort level 2.

You are changing that to a fort level 1 without maintenance.

I agree that settlements with low population should start with a fort 1 (but always maintenance) when you found a city there.

If you found a city in a settlement with more than 10 POPs, the fort could be level 2 and cost you more money to found the city.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

that would be ridiculous! game braking and not historical or reality accurate!



I was suggesting each founded city starts with a fort level 2.

You are changing that to a fort level 1 without maintenance.

I agree that settlements with low population should start with a fort 1 (but always maintenance) when you found a city there.

If you found a city in a settlement with more than 10 POPs, the fort could be level 2 and cost you more money to found the city.

So I found a city, get a level 2 fort, and then delete the fort(s) for gold? So far as I know, postmodern economics didn't exist in the classical period so there goes your historical reality argument .

 

[olivenkranz]

So I found a city, get a level 2 fort, and then delete the fort(s) for gold? So far as I know, postmodern economics didn't exist in the classical period so there goes your historical reality argument .

money printing goes brr

joking, its the price reduction for not taking the forts.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

money printing goes brr

joking, its the price reduction for not taking the forts.

I get a price reduction for not taking forts? But they've got electrolytes.

 

[IsaacCAT]

So I found a city, get a level 2 fort, and then delete the fort(s) for gold? So far as I know, postmodern economics didn't exist in the classical period so there goes your historical reality argument .

You pay 200 if you are not a tribe to found a city, that is more than what you get to disband the city walls (-200 + 28 + 28 in my game, results in a net loss of 144)