|
Post by celebaglar on Jan 2, 2004 15:51:13 GMT
I'm sure this has been discussed before, but as I'm a bit of a latecomer, I've probably missed it.
I know the reason for newly recruited lords not starting at dawn as in LoM, but is there a reason why starting them at night is preferred to starting them at whatever hour of the day they are recruited at?
Also, if the policy to start them at night is retained, it would make sense to allow recruitment after nightfall if in the same location. Without this, the newly recruited character loses an entire day for no reason.
Personally, I would prefer to start new characters at the time they are recruited, as this would remove the impending need to push your earliest characters to the limit since they can always go further than new recruits and time is of the essence.
|
|
Matija
Morkin Member
The Turtle Moves!
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by Matija on Jan 2, 2004 16:12:02 GMT
You said it. You have to push forward your tired characters, even your king, taking ever increasing risk that some maniak with 6 foul lords will pounce on you out of the blue.
There's no recruiting after night to allow for those nice situations, when upon dawn you discover the enemy has also reached the same spot and you must fight him for the neutral lord.
|
|
|
Post by celebaglar on Jan 2, 2004 17:17:49 GMT
Hmmm...
I admit that I'm not particularly enamoured of the idea of introducing inconsistencies and making them part of the gameplay.
The first issue forces the early tactics, which IMHO reduces the variety of gameplay, while the second doesn't sit at all well with the fact that you can reach a lord one hour before sunset and recruit him, while the next player might reach the same lord in the morning of the same day yet find him aligned to the enemy.
|
|
Matija
Morkin Member
The Turtle Moves!
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by Matija on Jan 2, 2004 17:31:16 GMT
The first issue forces the early tactics, which IMHO reduces the variety of gameplay. It limits somewhat the domino effect, and thus advantages of better starting position and turn order. As I see it, it actually adds to variety of the game: it puts more of the player's charater into his playing style, like Fernando's daring and my cowardice. while the second doesn't sit at all well with the fact that you can reach a lord one hour before sunset and recruit him, while the next player might reach the same lord in the morning of the same day yet find him aligned to the enemy. True, but I find those early fights for lords especially exciting and would be sorry to loose them.
|
|
Ringthane
Public Area Guest
Ardet nec Consumitur
Posts: 5,446
|
Post by Ringthane on Jan 2, 2004 22:54:22 GMT
Me, the 6-Foul Asteroid Maniac, humbly agrees ;D
|
|
|
Post by celebaglar on Jan 8, 2004 20:18:01 GMT
It limits somewhat the domino effect, and thus advantages of better starting position and turn order. Only in part. It doesn't help if the starting position is such that you will reach your first lord a day later than your opponents. In that case it amplifies the disadvatage, not limits it. What's wrong with the DDR approach, where recruited lords start at the time they have been recruited? Also, introducing a recruitment time (recruitment to take one hour of the day rather than be instantaneous) would give even more of a twist to the recruiting stage. Will you send a fast rider to some distant target to recruit him, ignoring the nearer lords for the time being, or will you play it safe and recruit all the nearest forces first and risk losing the farthest forces to a rival? A player's style will come through anyway. I'm not sure artificial rules enhance the gameplay. I don't see why changing the start times for recruits would necessarily remove the early fights. A king should be a precious commodity, to be risked only after careful consideration. He should give those near him a boost in morale and extra zest in battles he leads them in. Armies whose king spends all the game hiding down a rabbit-hole should be less effective than those where the king leads them himself. That's not a dig at anyone's playing style, just a reflection of real life cause and effect.
|
|
Natmus
Morkin Admin
Fight the power!
Posts: 4,518
|
Post by Natmus on Jan 8, 2004 23:01:22 GMT
A king should be a precious commodity, to be risked only after careful consideration. He should give those near him a boost in morale and extra zest in battles he leads them in. Armies whose king spends all the game hiding down a rabbit-hole should be less effective than those where the king leads them himself. That's not a dig at anyone's playing style, just a reflection of real life cause and effect. I have been thinking something along similar lines. Like a king could have a courage no lord could achieve, even with umpteen BoCs. Then, when the king led a host, all the armies would have something like ten percent extra stength.
|
|
Matija
Morkin Member
The Turtle Moves!
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by Matija on Jan 9, 2004 5:21:32 GMT
In my oppinion, the safest hiding place for a king is in the middle of the largest body of his lords.
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Jan 14, 2004 14:33:29 GMT
Please see the Polls forum.
|
|
Matija
Morkin Member
The Turtle Moves!
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by Matija on Mar 11, 2004 10:28:54 GMT
It has already been suggested that recruiting should take a certain amount of time. With the increased number of lords and more pronounced domino effect, the need for it is now even stronger, I think.
It would also make the game more interesting, since some lords behind the lines might be left out in the first wave of recruiting and become pray of marauding Wise and armyless lords.
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Mar 12, 2004 11:12:13 GMT
How long do you think? 1 hour, more? SHould citadel lords take longer than keeps who in turn take onger than wanderers, to reflect their own sense of importance? Maybe a per-lord hour penalty, or race-based so that different races take longer to recruit (thus minimising the targ cavalry bonus).
|
|
Matija
Morkin Member
The Turtle Moves!
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by Matija on Mar 12, 2004 11:24:42 GMT
Excellent ideas. I had in mind something like 3 hours at least, to really make a difference. Varying it individually, by race and importance sounds even better.
|
|
|
Post by celebaglar on Mar 12, 2004 11:43:16 GMT
Excellent ideas. I had in mind something like 3 hours at least, to really make a difference. Varying it individually, by race and importance sounds even better. I agree with a 3 hour basic recruitment time, modified according to bonuses. Wise could take less time to recruit, being the all-knowing persuasive chaps they are, assuming they are slowed down a bit. Recruiting those of the same race should be easier, recruiting natural enemies (free/foul, fey/dwarves, Targ/everybody) harder.
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Mar 12, 2004 11:56:31 GMT
Would we allow skulkrin to recruit , but only if they were at dawn (so they would arrive and have to wait until the next day)? Might actually make them useful, if only a little.
|
|
Matija
Morkin Member
The Turtle Moves!
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by Matija on Mar 12, 2004 12:07:38 GMT
Nah, skulkrin should only be able to recruit skulkrin, IMO.
But I had another idea: maybe, to be more useful as spies, they should be much harder to kill when discovered (able to hide from pusuers and silently slip away).
|
|