|
Post by celebaglar on Feb 12, 2004 0:16:50 GMT
Something that I'd like to see removed eventually is the practice of using lone lords as blockers.
At the moment it is part of the gameplay, and we all use it, but it's not realistic.
How about allowing all but dragons and Wise to be pass-thru if they have less than 50 men. One would get the choice of attacking them or just moving through them regardless. If by passing through an army ends up in the same location as an opponent overnight, then battle would ensue as normal.
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Feb 12, 2004 9:07:35 GMT
That would be very easy to implement, as I currently check for number of enemy lords ahead, but I could also just add a check for size of enemy army ahead and also nature of lord ahead (is he wise/dragon or not).
|
|
|
Post by queex on Feb 12, 2004 11:32:32 GMT
Hear, hear. Maybe for keeps too?
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Feb 12, 2004 11:33:31 GMT
For keeps? How do you mean?
|
|
Ringthane
Public Area Guest
Ardet nec Consumitur
Posts: 5,446
|
Post by Ringthane on Feb 12, 2004 11:50:03 GMT
Auto-storm? ;D
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Feb 12, 2004 11:57:02 GMT
But you would never want that to be automatic, surely? Because as soon as you go into battle, it's night for that lord. So attacking a garrison of 50 men might be of less interest than bypassing them and going after your quarry, such as the lady targ
|
|
Ringthane
Public Area Guest
Ardet nec Consumitur
Posts: 5,446
|
Post by Ringthane on Feb 12, 2004 12:12:34 GMT
yeah, i wonder if that's what ben meant...
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Feb 12, 2004 12:13:51 GMT
But you can't go through a keep if the gate is shut! Which it would be if even 1 enemy was present. Unless they were drunk on potica and unable to see you coming
|
|
|
Post by queex on Feb 12, 2004 12:42:13 GMT
But then a keep can hardly occupy 9 square miles, can it? As the squares in LOM are a league to a side. It should be possible to march past them without incident. And even if you did leave your lord in the same square, then it is the same as an attack you could have made.
Maybe there should be an alternative attack command, that inflicts double the usual casualties on you but resolves the battle immediately? That way you could use one lord to sweep the area clean before the rest of them march on.
|
|
|
Post by celebaglar on Feb 12, 2004 13:45:05 GMT
I'd be a bit wary of doing that to keeps.
There has to be a tactical advantage to holding keeps, and making your enemy go round them or waste time attacking them is a good point in that direction. Otherwise, you may as well leave them completely empty or ignore them.
I think it is good to have some ways in which a small army retreating from a larger one through its own territory can find maneuvers to gain extra time. Otherwise end games where the forces are not equal will be a foregone conclusion.
Keeps as blockers are fine. Individual lords in that role are not.
|
|
Ringthane
Public Area Guest
Ardet nec Consumitur
Posts: 5,446
|
Post by Ringthane on Feb 12, 2004 14:11:40 GMT
I think I have the solution. Add area of effect to keeps, 1sq on every direction centered at the keep.
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Feb 12, 2004 14:24:07 GMT
But then a keep can hardly occupy 9 square miles, can it? As the squares in LOM are a league to a side. It should be possible to march past them without incident. And even if you did leave your lord in the same square, then it is the same as an attack you could have made. Maybe there should be an alternative attack command, that inflicts double the usual casualties on you but resolves the battle immediately? That way you could use one lord to sweep the area clean before the rest of them march on. That's really going way away from the LoM-style of gameplay though. I don't want MU to get too realistic - I still want it to feel like people are playing LoM, just against one another rather than doomdark. Otherwise newbies won't stand a chance. Too many strange rules and you get cricket. Just enough strange rules and you get rugby. Far superior in my opinion
|
|
|
Post by queex on Feb 12, 2004 15:16:39 GMT
I still think that a keep manned by only fifty people shouldn't really be able to hold up the advance of 20000 enemies. A keep with 200, even 100 in, yes, they can cause serious delay. Otherwise you will get mad things like keeps being left with only 1 warrior to guard them- to both block movement and score very competitive casualties (when you factor in the garrison commander).
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Feb 12, 2004 15:20:28 GMT
I have implemented a mechanism in 0.1g whereby you cannot garrison a keep with less than 50 men (this is in my constants file, so can be changed if too low). You subsequently cannot take men out if that would drop the garrison below the 50 mark, unless you take them all out in which case you lose the keep.
Of course, if battle brings the number under 50, that is ok, but that should be the only occasion when this can happen - until you lot find an exploit of course!
|
|
Freiegeister
Morkin Member
'Blasphemy is a victimless crime' - Dawkins
Posts: 1,126
|
Post by Freiegeister on Feb 12, 2004 22:54:16 GMT
That's really going way away from the LoM-style of gameplay though. I don't want MU to get too realistic - I still want it to feel like people are playing LoM, just against one another rather than doomdark. Otherwise newbies won't stand a chance. Too many strange rules and you get cricket. Just enough strange rules and you get rugby. Far superior in my opinion You could allow units to bypass an occupied keep, however at a larger cost of movement to acount for them going around. Attacking a keep should take you to night. If the gate's locked, and the portcullus down, you still need to contruct ladders or a ram no matter how few are defending.
|
|