An idea for regions in the next Total War game.

[LightSpectra]

Eliminate them. When you capture a city, everything within the actual city becomes yours (i.e., the barracks, theaters and stuff), but the territory around it (mines, colleges, et al.) don't, unless you capture them.

When war negotiations begin, a MS Paint-esque type thing comes up, and you draw new borders for the two countries. The AI will calculate based on what you left for them whether it's fair. A possible exploit I see from this, though, is people who draw bizarre spikes and tiny blips in order to take more than the AI will agree to; though I think it's possible to reconcile that.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

I like that idea, especially the "drawing borders" thing. IMO there also should be an option where the game suggests borders for you and your enemy based on your success in the war(to make it easier to know how much you can expect to get in the peace negotiations), and also an option that draws you borders that are based on historical borders(to satisfy history freaks). To prevent exploitation, bizarre spikes and for example encircling cities would either be impossible or the AI would accept them only if they would be otherwise destroyed in a couple of turns.

 

[Maniacal]

This would be awesome! Although perhaps isntead of drawing, have each map building/settlement have an area aronud it, sort of a miniregion. Would make it a lot simpler.

 

[Dachs]

This would be awesome! Although perhaps isntead of drawing, have each map building/settlement have an area aronud it, sort of a miniregion. Would make it a lot simpler.

This doesn't actually change anything.

 

[Maniacal]

Well I guess I'm thinking of a system similar to EUIII's diplomacy/dealith with post-war provinces. Having player drawn lines would be complicated. Except in this case it would be every building is individual.

 

[Dachs]

Well I guess I'm thinking of a system similar to EUIII's diplomacy/dealith with post-war provinces.

Which looks a good deal like the screen that they have now, actually. Problem is that there's no distinction drawn between the provinces of the enemy that you've conquered in a war and the provinces that already belong to you. Personally, I don't think it's a particularly bad thing and in fact can be somewhat better than the EU III diplomacy. I got sick and tired of having to conquer Iran three times, running over the entire place, and then only being able to annex part of it when realistically I would have just been able to take the entire place. And if you can't get a peace deal with the enemy as-is, just conquer an extra province of theirs that you don't want and then cede it back to them.

Having player drawn lines would be complicated.

Yes, it would.

Except in this case it would be every building is individual.

Bringing us back to RTW and M2TW.

 

[Maniacal]

Not really, you only need one unit to capture them. Or raid. The AI can hardly perform a consistant defence of it's cities as is, therei s no worries abotu havingf to attack eveey single building.

 

[Dachs]

Not really, you only need one unit to capture them. Or raid. The AI can hardly perform a consistant defence of it's cities as is, therei s no worries abotu havingf to attack eveey single building.

If a whole region is devoted to every settlement - something which, FWIW, would require a massive reshuffling of settlements - it becomes more important to station troops in each one.

 

[Maniacal]

It wouldn't be any different than your idea of no regions, you'd still want to defend border settlements.

 

[Dachs]

It wouldn't be any different than your idea of no regions, you'd still want to defend border settlements.

First off, it ain't my idea. Secondly, it depends on how warscore is decided. Thirdly, I'm not stating that defense of border settlements is a Bad Thing, I'm saying that devoting larger amounts of resources than I already do (usually a few units of dragoons) is excessive, and I think that's what would happen if they each had their own region.

 

[Book Budda]

Too bad they couldn't have multiple cities in the provinces, I don't know about ETW but it doesn't seem right if in RTW you take the one city in the wilderness of Northern Russia you get the entire region without complaint from the other tribes or villages that would be living in the region.

 

[Maniacal]

IN ETW you still have to take the capital of the region to actually keep anything in that region.

 

[BrendanM]

The problem with the whole region system is, from my experience thus far, is that taking the capitol and garrisoning it is the end all be all to regional strife. Make it mandatory to garrison all the towns, at your benefit if you wish. Region capitals should command the largest portion of a occupying army, yet, the peripheral towns should go policed as well.

This has a few great outcomes: first it is more realistic (which is why we play these games right?), it slows expansion (which is really easy as is), when defending it makes you weigh the pros and cons of removing garrisons from certain towns to fight invaders.

They've already went half way with rebellions in non region capital towns, now why not go all the way and make garrisoning them important!

The only negative is more micromanagement of 'mini armies'. Which is only a hassle if you have large empire, for that I reckon they could have a 'insta-region garrison' button: have your main army in the region capital disperse according to need in each town automatically.

As to the 'redrawing borders' why not use the above system? When negotiations for peace arise: the region tab should have a subset of towns within that region marked by labels reflecting which towns are militarily controlled by the player and computer in said region. If you want to keep the towns you control in the region, then the game will redistrict them into your borders (or protectorate new state if you wish), or swap towns, negotiate towns, etc.

Regions still exist for cosmetics and simplicity when judging the economic output in sum, towns are wear the details should lie though.

Thoughts?

 

[Maniacal]

It has always been improtant to garrison the city, only in Empire has there been multiple cities, and since I don't have the game I don't know the importance of garrisoning every city yet. But it would make sense to institue a city guard, possibly a control building that spawns a couple of town guard units when the city is attacked.

 

[BrendanM]

It has always been improtant to garrison the city, only in Empire has there been multiple cities, and since I don't have the game I don't know the importance of garrisoning every city yet. But it would make sense to institue a city guard, possibly a control building that spawns a couple of town guard units when the city is attacked.

It only requires that you garrison the region capital city.

 

[Dachs]

It only requires that you garrison the region capital city.

Not even that. There are home-defense units that will spawn if cities are attacked.