Tien Chi! Sigh . . .

[Kristoffer O]

Originally posted by Zen:
Well in the balancing of it; maybe using pillaging to gain an army would be more factoryish, but if every time you conquer a province you gained an army it can be exploited (SP especially; but MP is my thoughts) by allowing provinces to be defeated in order to retake them and X number of new units.

Not if the number of new units were dependent on how many enemies you killed when conquering the province.

So would it be pure unit based? What about Ermorian, or Carrion Wood theme? I would think it would be based on the population of the province not the force defending it.

[Keir Maxwell]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Not if the number of new units were dependent on how many enemies you killed when conquering the province.

Excellent - you are interested in the idea then.

Number killed would be a good thing to factor in but not necessarily the only thing as butchering big inde provinces of militia etc is really easy. If enemy killed combo'd in some way with gold pillages maybe and/or turmoil.

But hey if you want to put it in of course do it how you think is best. I really want to play Barbarian Kings so anything that makes it work ok is good by me.

Cheers

Keir

Well maybe we could define the modifiers:

# of Units Defeated /20 = X # of Attracked Mongoloids * Khan Awe (His modifier for attracting Followers, A Ghengis Khan hero would have an increased # here

That type of forumlaec for the defeat of a province, then for up to 5 (or 4, or whatever you'd like to say) seasons after province taken there would be an additional formula for attracted hordlings.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zen:
Well in the balancing of it; maybe using pillaging to gain an army would be more factoryish, but if every time you conquer a province you gained an army it can be exploited (SP especially; but MP is my thoughts) by allowing provinces to be defeated in order to retake them and X number of new units.

Not if the number of new units were dependent on how many enemies you killed when conquering the province.

---

This would effectively avoid cooperative multiplayer sleazing, but it doesn't feel like it fits. Perhaps instead base it on how much you pillage, but decrease it proportional to unrest already existing in a province?

In the end however, I simply don't like this idea, and think it is strongly unthematic. The Mongols weren't really into raiding like that, but rather into conquering -- which they did very nicely. What raids they made were more like scouting expeditions to be followed up by later conquest.

I don't even think that turmoil scales make sense for the "Barbarians". The lands the Mongols conquered were safer and more orderly after their conquest. Their military was more orderly than every military that preceeded them, with the _possible_ exception of the Romans. Treatment of the Mongols et al as "Wild Barbarian Hordes" IMHO is a Western European and largely fictional bias.

[Keir Maxwell]

Originally posted by Jasper:

In the end however, I simply don't like this Mongols weren't really into raiding like that,

Er, Jasper - the Barbarian Kings options is very much not the Mongols. The Mongols in China is Yuan Chinese, the army of Kublai Khan, which (in its early period) is one of those rolls royce armies that make generals drool in their soup. More like Tien Ch'i main theme but with better cavalry. Not like the BK theme at all.

There were "barbarians" on the border of China (eg. Hsuing-nu) as far as the Chinese thought and Chinese scholars bewailed their depredations so this isn't just a euro-centric bias. When the barbarians take and hold chinese lands they slowly became absorbed by the more developed culture - happened to the Mongols to.

The Barbarians kingdoms is exactly that - barbarian ruling over the Tien ch'i. Presumably an unstable intermediary period which will go one way or the other - order or complete chaos. I would like to be able to play with both the BK and the regular Tien Ch'i competing so we could see which way the balence goes.

Mongols inspired would be another race but I think a Steppe base Hsuing-nu inspired race would be better. We will never get the LC to work anything like as well as the Mongol LC worked so why pretend they are Mongol quality?

Cheers

Keir

[Kristoffer O]

Originally posted by Jasper:
I don't even think that turmoil scales make sense for the "Barbarians". The lands the Mongols conquered were safer and more orderly after their conquest. Their military was more orderly than every military that preceeded them, with the _possible_ exception of the Romans. Treatment of the Mongols et al as "Wild Barbarian Hordes" IMHO is a Western European and largely fictional bias.

Actually the Barbarian Kings are not primarily inspired by mongols, but the Xiongnu that overtook the Jin dynasty in the fourth century. Much of the bureaucracy of the Han and Jin dynasties were lost. To the Chinese barbarian invasions were probably always experienced as chaotic and unorderly events.

On the other hand, mongols are well known and everyone will think 'mongols', and so do I to some extent.