|
Post by sparrowhawk on May 27, 2004 8:40:23 GMT
OK, OK. I know that I have been saying that I wasn't going to add anything new to the next release, but I've been making good progress over the last few days and feel on a roll!
Something has been on my mind since even before the first alpha games. I feel that at the moment MU suffers from too many games where the endgame is decided by amassing a super-army of 15 lords or so and bludgeoning your opponent over the head with sheer force of numbers. I stand guilty of the "tactic" myself.
And I don't like it. Not one little bit - it's becoming quite predictable and dare I say it, boring.
Now I think that this may have been raised before by someone, but at the time the db structure would have made implementing such a thing difficult. But I was thinking about adding the effects of disease to large army masses. So where troops > x (10K?) in one location, they have a y% (50%?) chance of losing z (5-10%?) troops to disease. Overnight losses from disease would be reported in the Think page for each lord.
Once battles are engaged, this would not be the case, as you already lose more than enough troops in battle.
Hopefully this would force people to keep their armies in smaller units.
Your thoughts please?
|
|
Natmus
Morkin Admin
Fight the power!
Posts: 4,518
|
Post by Natmus on May 27, 2004 9:13:34 GMT
This would make for interesting stand-offs, as two opponents would circle each other in small gruops close together, and each side looking for an oppourtunity to throw all one's own forces at one of the groups of the opponent, wrecking or even annihilating it.
No doubt this wold give games a lot more nerve, as things would be kept fluid.
Alternatively, as we have discussed some time ago, we could impose a coded limit of at the most five lords with armies (irrespective of the size of the armies), or simply a maximum of 10 or 12,000 soldiers, in one given square. This would also make large battles spill onto multiple squares simultaneously, which would make things very interesting to me.
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on May 27, 2004 9:35:23 GMT
Yes, that was the other option which I also like. Much easier to code too.
But the thing that I like about the disease option is that you can still take a gamble and amass your troops, but you stand a chance of losing some. Also, this would lead to supply routes being ambushed since you would not want you troops travelling together on their way to a battle, and so the enemy could lie in wait in forests etc. Thus outlying scouts would be required.
Hopefully this owuld add a much needed dose of tactics into the endgame.
|
|
|
Post by celebaglar on May 27, 2004 11:55:28 GMT
Yes, I guess that would work. I like J-Y slightly more complicated solution better than the fixed coded limit per square, which is too rigitd IMHO.
I considered this problem for Bloodmarch, where I also want to avoid the sort of situation me and Mads have ended up in with "The Taming of the Fey". Fascinating as that game may be, players should have more to worry about than matching the opponent's big force on the other side of the fence. For Bloodmarch, I want to introduce a disaffection factor: after a while on campaign troops get war weary and unhappy. They start to desert. The longer it goes on, the higher the desertions. The more people desert, the more displeased their officers become. Also, disaffection in a big army would tend to spread, so if you're not careful you could have a complete calamity on your hands.
Of course, there would also be certain factors to balance this, so with careful management a big campaign will still be possible.
But to get back on subject, go for it.
|
|
Ringthane
Public Area Guest
Ardet nec Consumitur
Posts: 5,446
|
Post by Ringthane on May 28, 2004 7:35:27 GMT
Could you combine all three effects? Desertion starts occurring when too far from lord's home for more than x days, with a rate no higher than 0.5%; then, disease takes troops where total army larger than m people, with an n% chance (<33) to a max extent of 3% of affected lord's army; finally, you're not allowed to have more than 15*2500 men in one same square. What do you think, do I need more sleep?
|
|
Matija
Morkin Member
The Turtle Moves!
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by Matija on May 31, 2004 7:11:43 GMT
Disease in Citadels, if overcrowded, could trigger a plague, with exponential increase in losses for each further day spent at a Citadel.
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Jun 1, 2004 8:21:59 GMT
The desertion idea is somewhat harder to justify if you think that you can swap your troops about between lords. So although the lord may be far from home, his troops might be locals. But I'll consider inplementing it. Disease at strongholds being greater than in the open is a good idea. However, I've got to be careful not to make strongholds places that you avoid holding too! Thanks for the feeback everyone.
|
|
Matija
Morkin Member
The Turtle Moves!
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by Matija on Jun 1, 2004 14:27:11 GMT
I meant it more in a way of a random event - it could happen, but not neccessarily, and when it happens, you are made aware of it, to evacuate the citadel.
In this way, a siege would be rewarded - sooner or later the plague would hit and defending army would have to retreat or suffer increasing losses from the plague. No standoff.
|
|