Why should pastures give a levy bonus, while fields don't

[Xain]

I just noticed in this video that Pastoral Lands will give a levy bonus, while Farms and Fields don't.

I do understand there might be a gameplay need of differentiating the two, but what is the ratio for giving pastoral lands a levy bonus and not giving it to farmlands?

It feels totally arbitrary...

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Pastoral land produces more of a tendency towards hunters and herders who are skilled with weapons to keep the wild beasts from their flocks.

You don't need quite the same skill with a bow to stop wolves trying to eat your wheat and barley.

 

[ShadyGuy_SuspiciousGoal]

Pastoral land produces more of a tendency towards hunters and herders who are skilled with weapons to keep the wild beasts from their flocks.

You don't need quite the same skill with a bow to stop wolves trying to eat your wheat and barley.

On the other hand, fields requires more manpower and will produce more population, which usually lead to a bigger levy, albeit less skilled.

 

[Xain]

On the other hand, fields requires more manpower and will produce more population, which usually lead to a bigger levy, albeit less skilled.

I tend to agree with you...

 

[Xenrek]

On the other hand, fields requires more manpower and will produce more population, which usually lead to a bigger levy, albeit less skilled.

honestly, i kind of agree on that; both should give roughly equal "levies" overall. One has more population centers to draw from, the other has more naturally skilled hunters to draw levies from.

where they should differ is on building availability; mayhaps with pastoral lands even giving additional men-at-arms at later levels?

though honestly, there isnt much of a difference between the 2 in a eurocentric view. whereas something like a Steppe culture might see a men-at-arms boost for buildings on pastoral lands, because of their reliance on horses as a larger composition of their forces

 

[Karlington]

Probably because there had to be some difference for gameplay's sake, and that's what they picked. I don't think there's a scientific reason deeply rooted in history here, though I may be wrong.

 

[Xain]

Probably because there had to be some difference for gameplay's sake, and that's what they picked. I don't think there's a scientific reason deeply rooted in history here, though I may be wrong.

Yes, but they could have differentiated them in many other ways, or even by tweaking the number so that farms would give less levies than pastures.

But as it is it feels very arbitrary and gamey...

 

[ShadyGuy_SuspiciousGoal]

Don't we have troop quality?

Farmland +100 levy, lowest quality.
Pasture +50 levy, lv2 quality.

Done?

 

[Xain]

Don't we have troop quality?

Farmland +100 levy, lowest quality.
Pasture +50 levy, lv2 quality.

Done?

Erm... that's not how it works. Lvl2 quality troops are men at arms, and they are recruited in a different way (paying for each regiment).
Levies are... just levies.

 

[ShadyGuy_SuspiciousGoal]

Erm... that's not how it works. Lvl2 quality troops are men at arms, and they are recruited in a different way (paying for each regiment).
Levies are... just levies.

Really? Then what's this?

I thought they were troop quality... Hm. Then maybe pastures can give bonus to cavalry?

 

[Olden Weiss]

On the other hand, fields requires more manpower and will produce more population, which usually lead to a bigger levy, albeit less skilled.

That's just it. Fields require manpower. Rather than take peasants away from the fields, which need regular tending, they take them from hunting grounds and ranches. It takes a lot more time and manpower to tend fields than it does to pour cattle feed into a trough.

 

[Tuo]

Really? Then what's this?
View attachment 610158

I thought they were troop quality... Hm. Then maybe pastures can give bonus to cavalry?

The quality of the army reflects the ratio of levies to men-at-arms (and knights, I believe). An army with a higher-quality ratio of troops will punch above its numbers against an army of weaker composition.

 

[LordofLight]

Essentially if you have few levies but a lot of men at arms you will have high troop quality and the other way around is low troop quality.

They did speak how this ratio can even effect a battle. Like you going from a low troop quality to a higher quality because so many levies died leaving you with more men at arms. Thus providing you more of a bonus.

Levies don't have levels. Levies are just levies.
Best you can do to represent higher quality recruitable troops is have a super minor reduction to cost of creating a men at arms 'unit'?

 

[Battlex]

I just noticed in this video that Pastoral Lands will give a levy bonus, while Farms and Fields don't.

View attachment 610150

I do understand there might be a gameplay need of differentiating the two, but what is the ratio for giving pastoral lands a levy bonus and not giving it to farmlands?

It feels totally arbitrary...

Farms give more tax than pastures thus allowing you to get mercenaries, as well as developing your other holdings more and so urbanising faster than pastures do

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

It takes a lot more time and manpower to tend fields than it does to pour cattle feed into a trough

Or chase them around a hillside.

 

[Dayvit78]

Do we know if there are different bonuses at higher levels? Maybe at level 4 fields, it gives a big manpower boost because that's when they have better technology to relieve some of the manpower need.

 

[Froggie]

Protein?

 

[Tryvenyal]

Pastoral land produces more of a tendency towards hunters and herders who are skilled with weapons to keep the wild beasts from their flocks.

You don't need quite the same skill with a bow to stop wolves trying to eat your wheat and barley.

On the other hand, fields requires more manpower and will produce more population, which usually lead to a bigger levy, albeit less skilled.

First now I saw the "landtype" has a level. Can it be the level 2 fields provide levies as well as tax while this portion is not added to when upgrading a pastural land?(Will buildings I assume?)

 

[Dragatus]

I agree with both the notion that it was done for gameplay reasons and the notion that it does not make logical sense. Unless we assume that a person needs to have a certain level of fighting skill before they can be recruited as a levy. As in if you rated the fighting skill of peasants only those above some arbitrary limit get to become levies because you don't really train levies much, you just induct the ones that already can fight to a degree. And then a fields province might have 1000 people of which 100 are good enough fighters to make it worth recruiting them and a pasture province might have 500 people of which 150 are good enough fighters that it's worth recruiting them.

The numbers are made up for the sake of illustrating a point.

 

[Atalvyr]

The need for them to offer a tradeoff for the sake of gameplay is greater than the need for fully scientific/historical accuracy. The difference is there to offer the player a choice between developing for tax or for levies.

Building Hunting Grounds gives taxes and a bonus to light cavalry. An argument could be made that hunters would make even better levies than herdsmen. And why the bonus to light cavalry? What if MY hunters use bow and arrow? Because it better serves the gameplay by making it distinct from other buildings, that's why.