Army size limit

[sparrowhawk]

Before voting "Remove the limit", bear in mind why it's there:

It prevents you aggregating all your troops in a small handful of lords who have very high courage. If you could, I personally feel that gameplay would suffer as it would become a case of a few lords hunting one another with everyone one else acting as spies. But let's see what others think.

When opting for a change, please state your preferred level (e.g. 1200, 2000, 3500, etc)

[Matija]

As battles work, if there were no limit, I'd give all my troops to the King, so he would be hardest to kill.

[daiabolical]

Level seems about right, my only comment would be that if the limit were in round thousands the maths would be easier.

[Old Shendemiar]

TheCreator said:

Before voting "Remove the limit", bear in mind why it's there:

It prevents you aggregating all your troops in a small handful of lords who have very high courage. If you could, I personally feel that gameplay would suffer as it would become a case of a few lords hunting one another with everyone one else acting as spies. But let's see what others think.

When opting for a change, please state your preferred level (e.g. 1200, 2000, 3500, etc)

I wont vote, but i'll comment. The limit in general is ok, and in right size too.

Highening it lot would lessen the meaning of the lords, as it would be only fewer who had the troops.

Highening it a little, whats the point?

Small limit makes one use also the lesser lords. No point playing a game where the resolutions are made between perfect parties.

On the other hand, Lords could vary a bit. Not so much that it would make a big strategical difference, but to add some spice and playing options. I'll write more about this thought in the suggestions under the topic ATTRIBUTES

roope.proboards26.com/index.cgi?board=MUUGS&action=display&thread=1070983640

[Freiegeister]

I like LoMs limit of 1200 for each unit type.

Mean't you could only have 1200 if you needed a fast mobile force of riders. If you wanted a mass force you had to have a mix of riders and warriors.

As Shendemiar said, with a lesser limit you are forced to use you weaker Lords...even if only to help move men from one location to another.

Garrisons however could be bigger! Say 1200 riders and 2400 warriors in a Keep and 2400 and 4800 in a Citadel.

Also consider the effect of Jean-Yves adding additional unit types in the future such as archers. (On horse and foot)

[sparrowhawk]

Freiegeister said:

Also consider the effect of Jean-Yves adding additional unit types in the future such as archers. (On horse and foot)

Archers are planned for V2 - they would be easy to add but I need to figure out things such as whether they should affect armies in adjacent units, etc.

Also considering siege engines that can be researched for gold then moved with a guard unit. These would be used adjacent to the target, and ouwld be destroyed once their guards had all been slain (ie the siege engine is effectively a lord with specific behaviours).

Any thoughts on whether this would add or detract from gameplay?

[Perun]

TheCreator said:

Archers are planned for V2 - they would be easy to add but I need to figure out things such as whether they should affect armies in adjacent units, etc.

I don't think affecting adjacent units would be a good idea. I read somewhere that one square on LOM map is about 1-2 km (a mile?). So what archer can fire his arrows to such a distance? They should add some other benefit - first strike ability, perhaps? Or heightened initiative in some other way? Or double damage if used against warriors, but weak against riders?

TheCreator said:

Also considering siege engines that can be researched for gold then moved with a guard unit. These would be used adjacent to the target, and ouwld be destroyed once their guards had all been slain (ie the siege engine is effectively a lord with specific behaviours).

Any thoughts on whether this would add or detract from gameplay?

Siege machines are interesting idea. And opposed to them there should be a way of purchasing defense machines for citadels (not keeps, they're too small!) (greek fire, catapults, etc.).

How do you think machines should affect battles?

[Matija]

They would take away some benefits of keeps and citadels, I suppose. Also increase fear in enemies. But should slow movement.

[Perun]

Matija said:

They would take away some benefits of keeps and citadels, I suppose. Also increase fear in enemies. But should slow movement.

Agreed. Something like Fawkrin. Maybe even slower.

[Matija]

It should perhaps be even possible to build siege engines on the spot, at some expenditure of time and energy.

And abandon them later, when they're no longer needed.

[Perun]

Matija said:

It should perhaps be even possible to build siege engines on the spot, at some expenditure of time and energy.

And abandon them later, when they're no longer needed.

I'm not sure about this. Bigger war machines were expensive and massive and were built in homelands and then pulled along with troops, especially trebuchets and catapults. Battering rams were made on the spot, maybe.

[Matija]

Many were built during the siege, I believe, when there were woods nearby. Especially siege towers.

[Ringthane]

Well, as for archers there's little doubt of what to expect from that unit type, I guess... bonus for the whole army in woods, and defending strongolds. Penalty in open field and versus riders.

As for siege machines... I agree with the "produce" option, more for defending units (indoors) than attacking (moving army). But they should be generic, e.g. "Siege Defence" and "Siege Weapons"...

[sparrowhawk]

Re: Archers:

I don't think affecting adjacent units would be a good idea. I read somewhere that one square on LOM map is about 1-2 km (a mile?). So what archer can fire his arrows to such a distance? They should add some other benefit - first strike ability, perhaps? Or heightened initiative in some other way? Or double damage if used against warriors, but weak against riders?

I always thought that archers were particularly effective against cavalry, as at Agincourt? But I'm no expert. I suppose that once the cavalry got amongst the archers they would be fairly devastating against lightly armed troops.

I see archers as having bonuses when defending strongholds and within forests, and being least effective when attacking an enemy stronghold.

[Matija]

Effectivness of archers against strongholds vary according to the quality of defences: if it is just a wall, archers can shoot in the air, so the arrows fall on defenders hiding behind the wall. And they can spread panic in the city behind the wall (also put it on fire). But they would be much less effective against a keep with a roof and arrow slits for defenders.