Matija
Morkin Member
The Turtle Moves!
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by Matija on Jan 4, 2004 16:37:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by celebaglar on Feb 11, 2004 20:04:54 GMT
Picking up the discussion from games. I'm not certain the reduction in replenishment rates will work, because the games most affected - the 4 player contests - will still see much bigger casualties. Big casualty numbers, fewer lords and low replenishment rates. Sounds like a sterile tactical environment to me. One rather complex idea would be to make strongholds as locations within locations. Therefore, when arriving at a stronghold, one does not get the benefits of the stronghold itself until he has entered it. This would need to be coupled with a maximum capacity for each stronghold, so you'd not be able to have 50,000 men all getting the benefits of defending inside a citadel. (e.g. at a citadel, the capacity could be 10,000. There are a few armies already inside the citadel, totalling 8,000 men. If two more armies arrived, one of 2500 men and the other of 1800, the larger army would not be able to enter the citadel, but the smaller one could). As a side effect, the impregnability of citadels would be lessened for big armies, but they would still offer significant protection when it comes to the crunch. IMHO, if this was implemented, the replenishment rates ought to be the same as they are now, and the actual defensive bonus for those inside the stronghold increased marginally. Keeps would have much smaller capacities, perhaps no more than 2500 men or even less.
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Feb 11, 2004 22:17:16 GMT
Hmmm... Rather tricky to implement at this stage, though I see the logic. I'll go away and have a think to see whether a slightly less sophisticated concept might work. But I have placed a moratorium on any new inclusions into 0.1g unless they are urgent bug fixes. Otherwise it will never get released! The amount regenerated can be flexed easily enough. Lets try a few test games and see what people think. Same as with the mountains. And if the camps are evenly split, I'll make them user-configurable at the New Game stage.
|
|
Ringthane
Public Area Guest
Ardet nec Consumitur
Posts: 5,446
|
Post by Ringthane on Feb 11, 2004 22:53:39 GMT
So what's the replenishment rate for 0.1g?
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Feb 11, 2004 23:09:18 GMT
The same as currently stands for 2 player games (15-20 I think?). But split over the number of sub-nights that make up a whole day. So if 4 players, it's (roughly) 15/4 and 20/4 each player's night.
|
|
|
Post by celebaglar on Feb 11, 2004 23:29:57 GMT
Hmmm... Rather tricky to implement at this stage, though I see the logic. I'll go away and have a think to see whether a slightly less sophisticated concept might work. I did say it was a complex suggestion. Also, it was intended as a contribution to the brainstorming rather than an idea ready for implementation. One point I hadn't realised is that the concept of a location inside another location also lends itself rather nicely to sieges. Another way to deal with the deadlock of two roughly equal forces when one decides to sit cooped up in a citadel. Absolutely. OK. Personally, I'd rather prefer it if you simply adjudicated and enforced one standard behaviour throughout. Otherwise you'll get some people willing to play under certain rules but not others, and any results table will become somewhat meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by celebaglar on Feb 12, 2004 0:09:01 GMT
Drat, I knew I had forgotten something.
Another idea that can be used on its own or with the above (and which is easier to implement) would be that strongholds only replenish for 10 turns after being visited by a friendly lord.
This would prevent strongholds that are effectively behind enemy lines from continuing to build up huge garrisons regardless. It would also stop long forgotten ones (Gloom, Dregrim, Xajorkith, Gard and maybe Moon come to mind) from having the sort of reserves that turn the result on its head after the final battle if enough lords escape with their lives..
|
|
Ringthane
Public Area Guest
Ardet nec Consumitur
Posts: 5,446
|
Post by Ringthane on Feb 12, 2004 7:53:02 GMT
Splitting the rate only makes sense if casualties in battle are also split... let's try it
|
|
Matija
Morkin Member
The Turtle Moves!
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by Matija on Feb 12, 2004 21:30:11 GMT
Drat, I knew I had forgotten something. Another idea that can be used on its own or with the above (and which is easier to implement) would be that strongholds only replenish for 10 turns after being visited by a friendly lord. This would prevent strongholds that are effectively behind enemy lines from continuing to build up huge garrisons regardless. It would also stop long forgotten ones (Gloom, Dregrim, Xajorkith, Gard and maybe Moon come to mind) from having the sort of reserves that turn the result on its head after the final battle if enough lords escape with their lives.. Yes, but OTOH, if a lord is present, the rate should be increased, I think.
|
|
|
Post by celebaglar on Feb 12, 2004 21:46:10 GMT
Yes, but OTOH, if a lord is present, the rate should be increased, I think. Yes, that sounds good to me.
|
|
Perun
Public Area Guest
Issa (Vis) [1:76:24]
Posts: 2,506
|
Post by Perun on Feb 13, 2004 8:31:25 GMT
Leave this as it is for now. This is not an issue at the moment. But, if I remember correctly (and I know I am ;D), in original LoM there really was[/b] location space limitation. I think that no more than 16 lords could be in one location at a time. This kind of limitation is easy to implement, does the trick rather well and is true to the concept of LoM gameplay. One small step away could be to check if the lord on location has an army - if not, count him out.
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Feb 13, 2004 8:51:06 GMT
I presume you mean that there should be a restriction on lords of the same allegiance? Otherwise you could bundle all your lords together and no one could attack you if you were at the limit! ;D Also 16 is rather high, I'd say 8 at most. Better still, limit it by the size of combined armies, eg max od 1,250 allied troops.
I discussed something like this with Gaz during alpha testing, but nothing ever came of it, can't remember why.
Will think about it for release after 0.1g.
|
|