First, only cities with at least 1000 people can initiate an attack against a neighbor. This fixes an "issue" where small tribes would get locked into a constant series of battles so that neither could grow larger than a few hundred persons. This is a fascinating outcome, but I want to see if I can let some cities grow a bit larger so the battles get more interesting. If I can squash some bugs that this rock is covering, maybe I'll remove the restriction.
Second, the rout percentages have been changed to random distributions, centered on 30% losses for attacker and 50% losses for defender. This gives a bit of salt to the simulation.
Third, when an attack is initiated, I have to think broader than just "this little town attacks its large neighbor." The capital city is the one calling the shots here, and so it makes more sense to gather an army and send them to the battlefield, rather than just hoping that the national military will show up and back your power play. This should allow more decisive (and "strategic") victories, as much larger forces will be able to overwhelm smaller intermediate cities.
Fourth, I've implemented treaties. When two nations drop from HIIK 1 (dispute) to HIKK 0 (no conflict), they can agree to an armistice for a certain period of time: about 5-40 years. This mechanic is also triggered after a drop from HIIK 4/5 (limited war/war) to HIIK 3 (violent crisis). During the armistice, both nations are at HIIK 0. After the armistice ends, the normal transition mechanism resumes. This should reduce the overall number of wars and allow nations to gain some strength before plunging themselves into mutually destructive conflicts.
It would be historically accurate to have small tribes constantly at war with each other. Many communities never experience large growth, whether that's due to violence is questionable. Also pitched battles were very rare and not often decisive. If two cities are at war it might be better to try to model the attrition of resources due to raiding and the capture of outlying settlements.
ReplyDeleteGood points all. As I suspected, there were some other bugs that the code was never throwing because I wasn't reaching large scale battles yet. So I'm going to remove the size restriction and see if it runs smoother with the smaller conflicts.
DeleteRight now the major thing I need to turn conquests into raids is for the winning side to refuse to assimilate a settlement they've captured.
You have a good point about the decisiveness of the battle. I'm not totally sure how to model this, except to say that if an attacking force loses only a few % of its men, and it withdraws, did the defender "win"? Or did the attacker call it off for another reason and the battle remains undecided? Determining the winner of a battle usually requires knowledge of the overall strategic goals of the war, and can be difficult to determine even years later, with the advantage of all the facts.
hmmm . . . maybe have a morale/willingness to continue the conflict value for each participant and have the number of men lost after a battle affect this value. Basically treat armies as a resource, so that a series of small battles, because of attrition, is just as decisive as large battles. Even if a force 'won' a battle they could still give up the fight after the battle because of men lost, a Pyrrhic victory. You could then have the depletion of other resources affect this willingness to fight, so armies are only one of many resources. The resources should have a constant depletion just due to the fact that they are at war, and then the effects of raids could be factored in separately. Idk, just some ideas.
ReplyDeleteI like the morale idea. Armies currently are indeed a resource, at least in terms of total bodies available. I've seen several cases where two armies will clash over a period of years or even close to decades sometimes, and eventually the loser can't replenish fast enough. But implementing Pyrrhic victories would be interesting and more or less straightforward.
Delete