|
Kings
Feb 12, 2004 13:56:44 GMT
Post by celebaglar on Feb 12, 2004 13:56:44 GMT
I'm sure that this has been discussed before, but would it be possible in a future version to disable kings from dumping their last 50 riders, or from passing them on to someone else?
Think of these guys as the personal guard, whose sworn duty is to protect the king whether the king likes it or not.
This will stop kings from melting into the landscape whenever the slightest danger beckons and relying on their lords to do all the fighting. Metaphorically, it will stop Luxor from entering the tunnels. The effect is that anyone, even someone on the cusp of defeat, can still have a slight chance if he can locate and engage the enemy king away from his main force.
Of course, if a king loses his last 50 in battle, then he can disappear, but he shouldn't be able to dismiss them voluntarily.
|
|
|
Kings
Feb 12, 2004 13:58:27 GMT
Post by sparrowhawk on Feb 12, 2004 13:58:27 GMT
Aha, that old chestnut (Sits back and awaits the counter arguments...)
|
|
Ringthane
Public Area Guest
Ardet nec Consumitur
Posts: 5,446
|
Kings
Feb 12, 2004 14:08:16 GMT
Post by Ringthane on Feb 12, 2004 14:08:16 GMT
You can't be concerned with making the game realistic and then admit that a king would not be able to do the disbanding trick...
|
|
|
Kings
Feb 12, 2004 15:01:45 GMT
Post by celebaglar on Feb 12, 2004 15:01:45 GMT
You can't be concerned with making the game realistic and then admit that a king would not be able to do the disbanding trick... It's about striking a balance between realism and gameplay. Too much of the former and the game becomes unwieldy, too much of the latter and you lose the feel and atmosphere. As far as the king is concerned, there ought to be no place to hide. ;D
|
|
|
Kings
Feb 12, 2004 15:13:47 GMT
Post by queex on Feb 12, 2004 15:13:47 GMT
This problem only really manifests with regicide as the victory condition. I think I'd much prefer 'capture citadel' games- and in those there is really no reason to prevent kings disbanding all their troops to avoid death.
|
|
|
Kings
Feb 12, 2004 21:24:54 GMT
Post by celebaglar on Feb 12, 2004 21:24:54 GMT
This problem only really manifests with regicide as the victory condition. I think I'd much prefer 'capture citadel' games- and in those there is really no reason to prevent kings disbanding all their troops to avoid death. I beg to disagree. Surely regicide is an inherent condition of all the games? Kill your opponent's king, and his defence of citadels or any other conditions becomes impotent, no? In terms of realism, if one's king goes to ground, you'd have to expect a massive drop in the morale of the troops loyal to him. The last thing that would happen is that his army would carry on the campaign with the same gusto as if the king was leading them in person. I admit I have a personal preference in this, as I see keeping one's king alive as a matter for military tactics rather than a game of hide and seek.
|
|
Freiegeister
Morkin Member
'Blasphemy is a victimless crime' - Dawkins
Posts: 1,126
|
Kings
Feb 13, 2004 1:06:35 GMT
Post by Freiegeister on Feb 13, 2004 1:06:35 GMT
It's about striking a balance between realism and gameplay. Too much of the former and the game becomes unwieldy, too much of the latter and you lose the feel and atmosphere. As far as the king is concerned, there ought to be no place to hide. ;D A quote from Bruce Shelley who worked with Sid Meyer on Civilization. "When considering a new feature for a game, apply the interesting decisions test. Is this new element or twist going to add an interesting decision to what the player is doing? If the answer is not a strong “yes,” leave it out." The full article is here: www.gdconf.com/archives/2001/shelley.doc
|
|
Perun
Public Area Guest
Issa (Vis) [1:76:24]
Posts: 2,506
|
Kings
Feb 13, 2004 8:25:09 GMT
Post by Perun on Feb 13, 2004 8:25:09 GMT
Hm, I have no real opinion here... Either suits me, since I never leave my king unprotected. And if the odds are totally against me, and my king is cornered, then one last glorious charge to the death is always comitted. But I agree with some thoughts here: there should be more game mods implemented ASAP, time allowing, of course. One of the most interesting would be (mentioned somewhere before) "capture all citadels". That way kings would be much less considered as player's armies "rally points", since one would have to defend several points instead of just one.
|
|
|
Kings
Feb 13, 2004 8:55:11 GMT
Post by sparrowhawk on Feb 13, 2004 8:55:11 GMT
I'm hopeful that the other 2 victory conditions will be up and running for 0.1g, but there's a small chance that I'll have to hard code them out temporarily. They seem OK at the moment, but I have not really tested them to a point that I am happy with them.
|
|
|
Kings
Feb 13, 2004 10:33:20 GMT
Post by queex on Feb 13, 2004 10:33:20 GMT
I beg to disagree. Surely regicide is an inherent condition of all the games? Kill your opponent's king, and his defence of citadels or any other conditions becomes impotent, no? Yes, but going to ground in a different game mode doesn't make the game almost impossible to win. Even if your opponent goes to ground, what do you care if there's a 'spy' your opponent daren't use? Carry on and take the citadels. And I think there are historical precedents for kings showing a clean pair of heels after a lost battle only to return with some more troops. Of course, if there's a victory condition 'leave your opponent armyless' then the problem goes away. If Midnight/MU can support multiple victory conditions in a single game, then you can check that condition if you don't like disapearing kings.
|
|
|
Kings
Feb 13, 2004 13:54:01 GMT
Post by celebaglar on Feb 13, 2004 13:54:01 GMT
Yes, but going to ground in a different game mode doesn't make the game almost impossible to win. Even if your opponent goes to ground, what do you care if there's a 'spy' your opponent daren't use? Carry on and take the citadels. *If* you have a superior force capable of doing so, sure. However, there will be plenty of occasions when one side will have to resort to desperate measures to avoid defeat. One of those measures would be track down the enemy king and try to kill him, knowing full well that you don't have the force to complete the other victory conditions (say, capturing all the citadels). If you effectively remove that small hope from a player who is losing on the big front, then some games will cease to be worth playing half way through. Yes, but on most of those occasions they get their backsides whipped again. Once a king is defeated, and specially if he runs away, why would anyone have faith in him? Moreover, we're not talking about kings who run AFTER a lost battle. We're talking about kings running away to avoid being involved in any sort of fighting at all, which is a different story. That one goes too far. If a king survives a battle without troops, then he should be entitled to be able to carry on. To much tinkering with victory conditions will just cause arguments betwen players about which victory conditions to apply even before the game starts. As always, a balance is needed.
|
|