[LOW] Initial placement of Kings

[Ringthane]

In suit. Why not just place players along predefined strips, instead of quadrants, in 2p games?

[Matija]

I still think the best way would be for every tester to prepare 10 or 20 pairs of starting positions that would give similar chances to both players. That would make more than a hundred starting positions to pick from. Enough, I believe, for them to be percieved as random.

[Old Shendemiar]

Back in the old days I made scenarion to TME, where all lords had random locations, in their own domain. "Inspecting their lands" as i called it. Icecrown had also been relocated.

It's still in the yahoo forum files section, but i wonder if it had been downloaded even once.

So maybe that kind of option would give some spice here?

[celebaglar]

Matija said:

I still think the best way would be for every tester to prepare 10 or 20 pairs of starting positions that would give similar chances to both players. That would make more than a hundred starting positions to pick from. Enough, I believe, for them to be percieved as random.

Again, fixed predetermined positions are fixed predetermined positions no matter how you disguise it. Sooner or later someone will figure out all the possible pairs and post their locations, then you are back to knowing exactly what is going on.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: this isn't chess. Removing all randomness and uncertainty would remove any point in playing M/MU more than a handful of times or so.

Luck and uncertainty must play a part, as in real warfare. Remove that and we might as well be playing a boardgame, in which case I'd rather play chess since it has less bugs.

Then I guess it is a matter of taste. My main grumble about LoM was that once you've played it a couple of times and beaten it, there was little point to playing it again. I've never been one to try for an even more convincing victory once I know exactly what my opponent will do. In that respect I preferred DDR, since you could never be 100% sure what you'd find.

Personally, I find the challenge of reacting to unexpected situations far more satisfying than acting out a pre-planned encounter in which everyone knows what their opponent is doing and where they are. If that means I sometimes find myself placed in positions that remove all chance of a win, so be it.

Rant over. ;D

[Natmus]

Celebaglar said:

[snip]

Rant over. ;D

Bill, I think we agree more than you think. Preset postions would be a boring thing. Maybe exclusion zones , say it would be impossible to start less than 7 squares from the Icy wastes or N-S or E-W middle lines. But that is besides the point! We both want more wargames and less recruitment games, and I think we agree that the changes in 0.1g has seriously upset the game balance, with the extra speed of Targ and Wise, and the malfunctioning random number generator.

Fixing or addressing those things should, IMHO, take precedence. Randomly removing lords is, still IMHO, a curious sidestep, and does not restore any kind of balance.

[celebaglar]

Natmus said:

Bill, I think we agree more than you think. Preset postions would be a boring thing. Maybe exclusion zones , say it would be impossible to start less than 7 squares from the Icy wastes or N-S or E-W middle lines.

I'd be quite happy with that, since it still leaves enough randomness in it.

But that is besides the point! We both want more wargames and less recruitment games, and I think we agree that the changes in 0.1g has seriously upset the game balance, with the extra speed of Targ and Wise, and the malfunctioning random number generator.

Agreed, although I think 2 player games are hit harder than 4 player ones..

Fixing or addressing those things should, IMHO, take precedence.

While I agree, that is something for J-Y to decide.

Randomly removing lords is, still IMHO, a curious sidestep, and does not restore any kind of balance.

Some balance would have been restored with the removal of paired lords rather than completely random ones. As I mentioned before, it's not just the random number generator and the new Targ and Wise swiftness that break the balance, but also the introduction of far too many lords, at least for the two-player games. I don't recall seeing one single balanced two player encounter since 0.1g was released.

But you are right, it should not take precedence over other issues. I suspect J-Y was taken with the idea and since it was one of those "instant" implementations, he just did it. I'm not sure it will help or hinder as it stands.

[Old Shendemiar]

Celebaglar said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: this isn't chess. Removing all randomness and uncertainty would remove any point in playing M/MU more than a handful of times or so.

Luck and uncertainty must play a part, as in real warfare. Remove that and we might as well be playing a boardgame, in which case I'd rather play chess since it has less bugs.

Then I guess it is a matter of taste. My main grumble about LoM was that once you've played it a couple of times and beaten it, there was little point to playing it again. I've never been one to try for an even more convincing victory once I know exactly what my opponent will do. In that respect I preferred DDR, since you could never be 100% sure what you'd find.

Personally, I find the challenge of reacting to unexpected situations far more satisfying than acting out a pre-planned encounter in which everyone knows what their opponent is doing and where they are. If that means I sometimes find myself placed in positions that remove all chance of a win, so be it.

Rant over. ;D

Yes this is/was also my concer... I was hoping for different gamemodes to solve this. Some other purpose for the game than just plain killing. Catch the flag, hold the fort(s), hide/seek, capture xajorkith etc.

I also see battles a bit problematic. It's quite meaningles now, how you battle. I think it lacks most strategic elements now. Battlerules should be documented clearly ASAP.

Maybe some battleoptions: Hold enemy from moving next turn, kill as many as possible, keep own casualties as low as possible, save energy, attack flank, attack rear, etc. These would have different effects depending of the situation and the settings of opponents.

Not too complex, but versatile, like "paper, scissors and stone"-game

[celebaglar]

Shendemiar said:

I also see battles a bit problematic. It's quite meaningles now, how you battle. I think it lacks most strategic elements now. Battlerules should be documented clearly ASAP.

Maybe some battleoptions: Hold enemy from moving next turn, kill as many as possible, keep own casualties as low as possible, save energy, attack flank, attack rear, etc. These would have different effects depending of the situation and the settings of opponents.

Well, what can be done in that direction is limited, as the game mechanism does not allow BOTH commanders in a fight to "prepare", and to give only the attackers the options would be unfair.

IMHO, differentiating a bit more between the abilities of different unit types would do the job, perhaps combined with a simple set of "standing orders" or each commander: aggressive (amplifies casualties on both sides) defensive (reduces casualties but also inflicts less damage) or normal (somewhere in between, or no modifier). This is where you might be able to apply the "paper, scissors & stone" rules to make various settings work better or worse depending on the opponent's settings and the setting of the battle (who is attacking, what army types are involved and what terrain is the battle on etc).

All this needs to be fairly transparent to the player, but a set of advisory rules would then need to be made available to everyone.

[Matija]

I like wargames, but this isn't one. At least not yet, or, if one considers it as such, it sucks.

As things stand, this is mainly a recruitment game. The player that gets (significantly) higher number of lords, will win. If there is no such player, a stalemate is the result, where one player must sacrifice himself by attacking against the odds, reducing his opponents forces so the third player may have a clear win.

So first we must decide, or be told, the direction this game is going. If it is to be a wargame then the significance of the lords must be lessened: army number limits lifted (but a bigger army under one leader would have a lesser morale), more troops generated (even in keeps), and victories bringing benefits (we talked about experience). Lords should no longer be deciding factors, but only bring bonuses. A mechanism shpould be established that would allow victory even with a single lord amassing a large army, like Doomdark in the original.

This leads me to another thought. Why not make 'moving garrisons', troops not led by a lord, but by a commoner. Make them slow(er), with low morale, unable to recruit anyone. If I understand correctly how garrisons work at present, this wouldn't present much changing the code.

[Natmus]

Steady on, everybody. This is a LoM remake, and I don't think the original gameplay should be sacrificed for more and more demands for realism. We shall have too look elsewhere for that.
My take on this whole mess of a discussion, that now does belong in the Suggestions section, is that M/MU should be as simple and fun to play as the original, with the addition of more players for unpredictability. Not too many special rules or advanced features or things like that, there's a ton of other games that can provide that.

The current problem, as I see it, is the great potetial for unbalanced recruiting and subsequent lack of real play. Solve that, and we get a pretty fun game, even if it isn't realistic.

[Old Shendemiar]

Natmus said:

Steady on, everybody. This is a LoM remake, and I don't think the original gameplay should be sacrificed for more and more demands for realism. We shall have too look elsewhere for that.
My take on this whole mess of a discussion, that now does belong in the Suggestions section, is that M/MU should be as simple and fun to play as the original, with the addition of more players for unpredictability. Not too many special rules or advanced features or things like that, there's a ton of other games that can provide that.

The current problem, as I see it, is the great potetial for unbalanced recruiting and subsequent lack of real play. Solve that, and we get a pretty fun game, even if it isn't realistic.

I kind of agree keeping it as simple as possible. I was looking for a simple solution, something that would not change the game much, but would allow the possibility of cunny planning and something that would change the "player with most lord will win."

I remind that also simple rules changes can add a whole amount of depth, a need to plan and think, and react.

What it would be, that i dont know, but we all must keep our eyes open, and take a minute to imagine what the game would be like with any suggestion.

Many suggestions here, (and anywhere that improvements are discussed) tend to grow to undefined complex grey mass, Nobody really wants that.

There must be a Supreme god who sorths all out, that keeps his head cool. JY has done this pretty good i think.