Giving regions

[shower_room1944]

Is there any way to give regions to your allies? I took some of the regions back from vikings that they took from my ally and I want to give it to them. If not then is there any mods to enable this feature?

[Ernavill]

I haven't found a way yet. It's a feature I quite often miss myself, as I like to keep my kingdom neat rather than too patchworky.

I often end up putting a rally point down when I want an area taken by my ally and hope the right one goes for it. To ensure they take it, I often put an army nearby to ensure they win the battle.

[shower_room1944]

Originally posted by Ernavill:

I haven't found a way yet. It's a feature I quite often miss myself, as I like to keep my kingdom neat rather than too patchworky.

I often end up putting a rally point down when I want an area taken by my ally and hope the right one goes for it. To ensure they take it, I often put an army nearby to ensure they win the battle.

Oof I wish there was a way, idk why they didn't add it.....

[Ernavill]

It used to be in the games, so they actually took it out at some point. No idea why.

[shower_room1944]

Originally posted by Ernavill:

It used to be in the games, so they actually took it out at some point. No idea why.

Yeah that's f*cking stupid move by them, no wonder their games are going down the toilet

[medcraft]

Giving regions or bargaining with regions is in Total war Troy, I really love the diplomacy in that game, I wish Britannia had the same...

[shower_room1944]

Originally posted by medcraft:

Giving regions or bargaining with regions is in Total war Troy, I really love the diplomacy in that game, I wish Britannia had the same...

Wow I never knew it was on steam now! I am gonna pick it up as soon as I get a chance.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Originally posted by Chicensnake:

Originally posted by Ernavill:

It used to be in the games, so they actually took it out at some point. No idea why.

Yeah that's f*cking stupid move by them, no wonder their games are going down the toilet

The mechanic was in RTW, Med 2, and Empire/NTW, but in all of those games, it was very cheesable by players. AI simply can't factor the mechanic effectively, relative to a human, in the sandbox, TBS+RTT environment of classic TW design.

The decision was made then to remove it starting with Shogun 2. ToB is hardly the only TW game to not have the mechanic: Shogun 2, FotS, Rome 2, HatG, CiG, ED, Attila, and AoC all do not have a region trading mechanic.

The original/classic TW design or system never really lent itself to the mechanic. It came into force with RTW, and was very exploitable and wonky from day one.

The reason it can be seen as more viable in something like Troy, is because Troy follows on the TW3K formula, i.e. it fundamentally breaks with the classical TW design. 3K and Troy are both "Romance of Three Kingdoms" esque, character-driven games with battles and strategic army use grafted on. These games are fundamentally different from pre-WH TW, and even significantly different in design from the TW WHs in several ways.

That said, this is all in theory; in practice the mechanic is still potentially very problematic anyway, as this thread in the Troy forums attests:

https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/273882/heres-why-region-trading-doesnt-work

As the thread above illustrates, other mechanics such as the liberate-region/resurrect function were removed or eschewed. It's pretty straightforward to see that such decisions would be made, so as not to mess up the character-driven design. The point being, region-trading comes with other compromises, if it is to mesh with the other design elements.

When it comes to Thrones of Brittiania, this game (ToB) is very much built on the classic, pre-WH, TW formula. Diplomacy mechanics that came to fruition within that formula, such as "liberate" or "annex," have a proven track record (over multiple titles) of effectively meshing with the other gears within the formula, and are in the game. The lack of a region-trading function makes sense because it, by contrast, has a track record of being wonky within the formula.

[medcraft]

Originally posted by Mile pro Libertate:

Originally posted by Chicensnake:

Yeah that's f*cking stupid move by them, no wonder their games are going down the toilet

The mechanic was in RTW, Med 2, and Empire/NTW, but in all of those games, it was very cheesable by players. AI simply can't factor the mechanic effectively, relative to a human, in the sandbox, TBS+RTT environment of classic TW design.

The decision was made then to remove it starting with Shogun 2. ToB is hardly the only TW game to not have the mechanic: Shogun 2, FotS, Rome 2, HatG, CiG, ED, Attila, and AoC all do not have a region trading mechanic.

The original/classic TW design or system never really lent itself to the mechanic. It came into force with RTW, and was very exploitable and wonky from day one.

The reason it can be seen as more viable in something like Troy, is because Troy follows on the TW3K formula, i.e. it fundamentally breaks with the classical TW design. 3K and Troy are both "Romance of Three Kingdoms" esque, character-driven games with battles and strategic army use grafted on. These games are fundamentally different from pre-WH TW, and even significantly different in design from the TW WHs in several ways.

That said, this is all in theory; in practice the mechanic is still potentially very problematic anyway, as this thread in the Troy forums attests:

https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/273882/heres-why-region-trading-doesnt-work

As the thread above illustrates, other mechanics such as the liberate-region/resurrect function were removed or eschewed. It's pretty straightforward to see that such decisions would be made, so as not to mess up the character-driven design. The point being, region-trading comes with other compromises, if it is to mesh with the other design elements.

When it comes to Thrones of Brittiania, this game (ToB) is very much built on the classic, pre-WH, TW formula. Diplomacy mechanics that came to fruition within that formula, such as "liberate" or "annex," have a proven track record (over multiple titles) of effectively meshing with the other gears within the formula, and are in the game. The lack of a region-trading function makes sense because it, by contrast, has a track record of being wonky within the formula.

The most awesome in depth explanation that I don't understand, thanks.

[Ernavill]

Originally posted by medcraft:

Originally posted by Mile pro Libertate:

The mechanic was in RTW, Med 2, and Empire/NTW, but in all of those games, it was very cheesable by players. AI simply can't factor the mechanic effectively, relative to a human, in the sandbox, TBS+RTT environment of classic TW design.

The decision was made then to remove it starting with Shogun 2. ToB is hardly the only TW game to not have the mechanic: Shogun 2, FotS, Rome 2, HatG, CiG, ED, Attila, and AoC all do not have a region trading mechanic.

The original/classic TW design or system never really lent itself to the mechanic. It came into force with RTW, and was very exploitable and wonky from day one.

The reason it can be seen as more viable in something like Troy, is because Troy follows on the TW3K formula, i.e. it fundamentally breaks with the classical TW design. 3K and Troy are both "Romance of Three Kingdoms" esque, character-driven games with battles and strategic army use grafted on. These games are fundamentally different from pre-WH TW, and even significantly different in design from the TW WHs in several ways.

That said, this is all in theory; in practice the mechanic is still potentially very problematic anyway, as this thread in the Troy forums attests:

https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/273882/heres-why-region-trading-doesnt-work

As the thread above illustrates, other mechanics such as the liberate-region/resurrect function were removed or eschewed. It's pretty straightforward to see that such decisions would be made, so as not to mess up the character-driven design. The point being, region-trading comes with other compromises, if it is to mesh with the other design elements.

When it comes to Thrones of Brittiania, this game (ToB) is very much built on the classic, pre-WH, TW formula. Diplomacy mechanics that came to fruition within that formula, such as "liberate" or "annex," have a proven track record (over multiple titles) of effectively meshing with the other gears within the formula, and are in the game. The lack of a region-trading function makes sense because it, by contrast, has a track record of being wonky within the formula.

The most awesome in depth explanation that I don't understand, thanks.

I'll summarise for you: The developers had to make choices. This one was seen as more trouble than it's worth, and so it didn't make the game.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Originally posted by Ernavill:

Originally posted by medcraft:

The most awesome in depth explanation that I don't understand, thanks.

I'll summarise for you: The developers had to make choices. This one was seen as more trouble than it's worth, and so it didn't make the game.

Not really but whatever.

[Max]

I prefer simplified diplomation from ToB comparaed to Troy. Troy's worst aspect is trading damn resources which is part of diplomation. I don't know who in CA think it's fun. It's not. Same like with food in 3K, but that one was less painfull. Campaign is different in ToB and Troy anyway, but in Troy I spend few minutes sometimes, not every turn, in diplomacy to trade wood for food...

[Max]

Originally posted by Mile pro Libertate:

Originally posted by Ernavill:

I'll summarise for you: The developers had to make choices. This one was seen as more trouble than it's worth, and so it didn't make the game.

Not really but whatever.

Yeah it isn't really historically accurate tbh to trade regions in ToB.