The Citadel

Look at this:



That is ridiculous. I killed three-quarters of Aerys's army and got 180 prestige. I should be getting at least 10% warscore from that battle.

What was the BATTLE_WARSCORE_WORTH value in defines.lua? 0.1 was set to 150, current is at 300.

Wolfgang Pauli wrote:What was the BATTLE_WARSCORE_WORTH value in defines.lua? 0.1 was set to 150, current is at 300.

Still 300. I suspect that the effect might be reduced by the extremely large armies available in Westeros, but I can't say for sure. And Tywin was on the King's side, so maybe that was a factor.

Yes, the warscore is based on the total possible levies.
Meaning that killing 20% of the enemy total possible army always give the same score.
And as the army is mainly composed of vassal troups, there are still plenty to raise and what you kill is a very small number.

I raised it to 1000. Effects are... interesting.

Give it a try if you can and tell me what you think. From my first tests things do certainly look more Westeros-like, but wars might become awfully short...

Well, to be fair, that would be pretty in line with the books. A lot of major conflicts only seem to run for about one to three years.

Kingsgrave wrote:Well, to be fair, that would be pretty in line with the books. A lot of major conflicts only seem to run for about one to three years.

Needs more testing to see if it's fun, though. If the problem could be fixed with a lower levy reinforcement rate then that would probably be the better solution.

Wolfgang Pauli wrote:

Kingsgrave wrote:Well, to be fair, that would be pretty in line with the books. A lot of major conflicts only seem to run for about one to three years.

Needs more testing to see if it's fun, though. If the problem could be fixed with a lower levy reinforcement rate then that would probably be the better solution.

The problem with this is the Iron Throne tends to create one large army while the allies are spread out and tend to be defeated piecemeal.

Smoesville wrote:

Wolfgang Pauli wrote:

Kingsgrave wrote:Well, to be fair, that would be pretty in line with the books. A lot of major conflicts only seem to run for about one to three years.

Needs more testing to see if it's fun, though. If the problem could be fixed with a lower levy reinforcement rate then that would probably be the better solution.

The problem with this is the Iron Throne tends to create one large army while the allies are spread out and tend to be defeated piecemeal.

In some cases. We really can't make general statements about that kind of behavior. I've seen more than my fair share of supporting armies coordinating megastacks.

I think though that the Iron throne does it more often, from what i've seen. In those cases the problem (for the IT) is attrition, by the time the allies got the second wave ready, Rhaegars army had halved mostly through attrition to a point where the allies won the day, though they lost the war because the Westerlands declared for the IT. Nice work on stopping Tywin becoming independent all the time, it makes for much better games, in the last one the Iron Islands declared for Robert and then Tywin declared against him. He did it in a really Tywin style aswell, he waited until both sides were weakened and then swooped in to clean up.

Zarine wrote:Yes, the warscore is based on the total possible levies.
Meaning that killing 20% of the enemy total possible army always give the same score.
And as the army is mainly composed of vassal troups, there are still plenty to raise and what you kill is a very small number.

FUCK DOES THAT MEAN 30K LEVIES WERE ONLY 2 PERCENT OF HIS MAX HOOOOOOOLY SHIT I GUESS I MIGHT ASWELL GIVE UP NOW?!