Matija
Morkin Member
The Turtle Moves!
Posts: 1,696
|
Wise
Feb 7, 2004 11:09:46 GMT
Post by Matija on Feb 7, 2004 11:09:46 GMT
This just occured to me: wouldn't it be fun, if the wise were able to read at a tower all the information that was given as guidance during their owner's turns (all that his enemies learned since it was last his turn).
Perhaps it might only be possible to do it at a select few of all the towers (Moon and Lorgrim come to mind).
|
|
|
Wise
Feb 7, 2004 15:25:28 GMT
Post by queex on Feb 7, 2004 15:25:28 GMT
What about if when a Wise searches their own tower they always receive information and suffer no energy loss? Or Wise have a general guidance-related bonus?
|
|
|
Wise
Feb 11, 2004 9:47:41 GMT
Post by sparrowhawk on Feb 11, 2004 9:47:41 GMT
What about if when a Wise searches their own tower they always receive information and suffer no energy loss? Or Wise have a general guidance-related bonus? Wise in 0.1g *always* get good guidance (ie about neutrals or enemies). As an added Brucey-Bonus, they now travel through forests unhindered, as per the Fey. Other race changes that are in place: -Targ have very fast cavalry on plains (but stick some warriors in and they plod along like the rest). However, they have a movement penalty in forests, as being a primitive folk, they fear the spirits of the trees. (Well that's my ropey excuse for implementing the penalty. Makes Targ a more tactical unit). -Dwarf citadels generate more gold. Utterly useless at present, but when I *eventually* build in the gold-related features, it will come into its own. -Skulkrin have no added movement penalty. They can walk as far as an on-foot free lord now -All races (except dwarves): Mountains are *much* harder to traverse, taking lots more time and energy. -Dragons: Much better fighters, slightly less range, still tire quickly though, so you have to make a tactical decision as to whether to fly them far to strike when tired, or rest them and lose the range advantage -Wise: as mentioned, no forest movement penalty and good guidance always at towers, plus much better fighters (though not in dragon league!) -Free, Foul, Fey: No changes.
|
|
|
Wise
Feb 11, 2004 11:02:14 GMT
Post by daiabolical on Feb 11, 2004 11:02:14 GMT
|
|
Matija
Morkin Member
The Turtle Moves!
Posts: 1,696
|
Wise
Feb 11, 2004 11:13:49 GMT
Post by Matija on Feb 11, 2004 11:13:49 GMT
Aren't mountains hard enough as it is?
|
|
|
Wise
Feb 11, 2004 11:23:55 GMT
Post by sparrowhawk on Feb 11, 2004 11:23:55 GMT
Personally I think not. But all these things can be flexed if people find them too hard.
|
|
|
Wise
Feb 11, 2004 11:49:07 GMT
Post by sparrowhawk on Feb 11, 2004 11:49:07 GMT
I don't think mountains should be *much* harder, as you put it. Maybe a *little* harder, if you insist. Even so, I would like to hear why you think the mountain penalty should be changed. Because it seems unrealistic to expect an army to pass through a mountain range in a day, and yet come out the other side not too tired by the experience. Also, I like strategies and tactics that make heavy use of the terrain. As more dwarf armies begin to appear, they become tactically more important. But as ever, if the majority find that it does not work well, it's just a matter of changing one variable value.
|
|
|
Wise
Feb 11, 2004 11:53:55 GMT
Post by queex on Feb 11, 2004 11:53:55 GMT
I like the idea of 'mountain as formidable barrier'. If they're just another terrain type with high costs, they don't 'feel' any different. In Fresh Food for the Foul I ran 10000 troops through the mountains to bolster an attack, and they weren't any more tired than those that had crossed the plains.
If cutting through 2 squares mountains means you avoid 20 squares of movement across plains (which it can often do), then the cost should really be ten times as much. What you gain in time you should lose in tiredness.
Sending troops through mountains should be a serious task. I even made mountains impassable to most troops in Marshall Lords.
|
|
|
Wise
Feb 11, 2004 19:33:37 GMT
Post by celebaglar on Feb 11, 2004 19:33:37 GMT
Hmm, interesting changes, most of which I think will work out OK.
I think the Wise changes are sufficient and wouldn't like to see them made much more powerful. I certainly wouldn't want to have them receive reports of everything everyone knows about their lord.
The mountains I'm less sure about. While I can understand they would make the dwarves a more tactical unit, the reality is that there are unlikely to be enough dwarf units in any one faction to make them a significant threat on their own.
I think mountains should be a bit slower to travel through, and bit more tiring. Perhaps varying the speed and fatigue with the number of soldiers in the army might work too. (Fewer men travel quicker and lighter, bigger armies are more cumbersome and getting 2,000+ men through the narrow mountain trails should be a pain. Cavalry could suffer more than infantry, or even have their way blocked - though that would require a " dismount " button * as a tactical option etc.)
I also think lone lords in mountains should not be visible, and should only be dsicovered following a search in the location. Think of how hard it would be to find one single man in all the nooks and crannies of mountain terrain. This would make strongholds in mountain passes hard to assault, but relatively easy to spy on.
* The " dismount " button would work as it sounds. The riders would become warriors, and a herd of horses equal (or slightly smaller) to the number of ex-riders would be created. Therefore, dismounting and crossing mountains would carry the risk that even if one intends to return the same way and pick up the horses again (time penalty for searching), there's always the chance that someone else will pick them up in the interim.
|
|
Perun
Public Area Guest
Issa (Vis) [1:76:24]
Posts: 2,506
|
Wise
Feb 11, 2004 19:44:23 GMT
Post by Perun on Feb 11, 2004 19:44:23 GMT
I agree that mountains should be much tougher to cross than they are now. Whole day for one cell is OK. And considerably more energy that cross should cost. This way there is a whole new tactical field open.
|
|
Perun
Public Area Guest
Issa (Vis) [1:76:24]
Posts: 2,506
|
Wise
Feb 11, 2004 19:58:24 GMT
Post by Perun on Feb 11, 2004 19:58:24 GMT
Fernando will have your head for that Targ remark, JY! ;D If Wise courage is not fixed to utterly courageous, then I have a suggestion: Wise can get guidance only for those lords whose courage is less or equal to his/hers. Btw, I'm against fixing courage for Wise to the max. Why? They're humans/fey/foul after all. Courage fixing should only be implemented for beasts - dragons, wolves, etc. for obvious reasons. Also, lowering penalty for Wise in forests only works if they are fey in nature (in which case you're very close to copying Tolkien, JY . So I'm against it: why in the world would old geezers move faster/easier thru forests than others? It doesn't make any sense to me. Tiring dragons as others is another mystery to me. If they're flying they should tire equally thru all terrain regardless of type. Maybe little more over mountains, but certainly not as walking across them. And since you mentioned riders/walkers: I think warriors should be more slower than riders, meaning more than just one move per day difference. Two sound about right, IMHO, maybe even three.
|
|
|
Wise
Feb 11, 2004 22:11:20 GMT
Post by sparrowhawk on Feb 11, 2004 22:11:20 GMT
Fernando will have your head for that Targ remark, JY! ;D He'll have to catch me first! Mind you, that nice new Targ cavalry will let him do it! Courage is not fixed, but search success is (the old boy's network I suppose!) I'm tending to think of Wise along Gandalf-like lines, rather than a bunch of old librarians. Also, I wanted them to have quite a few differentiating factors, otherwise people might ignore them completely. OK, OK folks. I finally surrender. You can have your flying fortresses. If only to make my life easier! To be honest I'd been thinking the same thing, but I thought that there would have been an outcry by everyone if I suggested it Let's see how others take this suggestion...
|
|
|
Wise
Feb 11, 2004 22:33:29 GMT
Post by celebaglar on Feb 11, 2004 22:33:29 GMT
OK, OK folks. I finally surrender. You can have your flying fortresses. If only to make my life easier! If you're going to do that, please limit their range to no more than 2x that of riders. Otherwise they will become a deadly weapon against army collectors, and it'll tilt the balance in favour of their owner far too much. Also, any dragon fighting on its own should have a fairly high chance of getting killed, even against as few as 50 men. I don't think anyone wants a situation where marauding dragons decide every game. Hmmm, it sounds fairly logical up to a point, but there are inherent dangers. Slowing the infantry down much more might end up making the whole game very static, and when you think about real cavalry and infantry, the former rarely travel at a gallop (their main use is in speed and mobility on the battlefield), while the latter can march long distances quite quickly at a forced march. How about this for an alternative suggestion: increase cavalry strength when attacking on open ground (hills & plains), and double the infantry's fatigue factor for the last two hours when travelling the entire day.
|
|
Ringthane
Public Area Guest
Ardet nec Consumitur
Posts: 5,446
|
Wise
Feb 11, 2004 22:46:44 GMT
Post by Ringthane on Feb 11, 2004 22:46:44 GMT
Hell, where should I start.
|
|
|
Wise
Feb 11, 2004 22:47:07 GMT
Post by sparrowhawk on Feb 11, 2004 22:47:07 GMT
I'm going to leave dragons until last. Give evryone a chance to have a say. But if I'm right, the current thinking for dragons is that: - They should be very powerful in combat
- They should still be easy enough to kill in combat though, so that they are used more as a battle decider rather than an army in their own right, except against small armies
- Their range should be curtailed
- They should not tire too much over mountains (updrafts?!)
The infantry idea is a better solution to the smaller range. You're right, cavalry would be moving at a walking pace most of the time, untl the final charge into battle. Having said that I wasn't going to add any more to 0.1g, I'm tempted by that last one!
|
|