I hope my post is new.
I think that after a player has conquered a castle, he should have also all the resources of the player beated. I mean gold, gems, metal, stone and wood that the player beated had at the time when the castle was taken over.
Now the winner gets only the troops ready in the barracks.
I think he should get everything was owned by the loser.


Any comments ?

Last Edited : Wednesday, 17 November 2004 - 18:27

It'd be nice.

Good idea, but not all resources, but a factor of them (some are stolen by your soldiers, some are destroyed during the fights.

I don't think it is too good.

That would move the chances of retaking your castle from the very difficult to the almost impossible with that one minor change. There are times when your army is engaged in the field, you have a forward barracks, and your castle is lightly defended. If someone seizes the opportunity and takes your castle from behind while you are busy...you can always turn your army back towards home and try to retake your castle before you are eliminated. If the enemy also got all of your resources, you would not be able to build any new troops in your barracks outside the castle that might be needed to counter the invading army. And, the invader would have a huge advantage in being able to build all of your troops immediately to use against you with your own funds.

Perhaps if the resources (or some portion) went to the conqueror when the other player was actually eliminated, that would be fair.
Cheers,
H.

Don't think so.

Think of the time setting of the game. Just because you take over a castle does not mean that the workers will follow you.

What if you have two castles and someone takes one over, do you lose everything, or you just let one fall because its only a slab because you destroyed everything for the resources?

I think it should stay the same as it is.

All the people on my newly conquered land will obey my comands or suffer from my wrath

I'm thinking about situation when the player is eliminated by taking the castle, or as i wrote earlier, it my works in that way
you take the resourced stored in that castle, the rest is in others and with field armies

nice thought but just wanna point out

IT will set up so lower level games people will be more likely to create multi accounts just to "farm" resources

When you conquers a castle, everything is inside is yours.
I suppose that gold, metal, stone, gems and wood are inside the castle as they are used to deploy troops.
So I think they should follow the fate of the castle.
I would not agree for the troops, because the troops deployed in the barracks could decide (if they would be real soldiers) to escape and to not obey to the conqueror.

Braq..I suggested something similar in the question forum not too long ago...I bumped it up for your reading pleasure.
Only Mog responded...negatively.

I agree with you that at least SOME portion of the resources should be captured when taking a castle, however I see a lot of good points to keep it as it is for better game play.
I do think, however, that resources should come into play somehow when calculating the rankings.

Would it be feasible that at the end of the game...the last turn completed...all resources still on hand would have some point percentage that would add to your final experience total. It may be enough to bump you up a spot or two if the person ahead of you in the rankings finished with little or no resources on hand.

That would add an extra resource strategy to the game without affecting the actual play during the game.
Thoughts/comments??

i agree partly with the ranking calculatations suggestions
in fact..networth should be included...including army,castles,resources,buildings....and all is calculated for the networth
that way,it`ll become not a total war game for the campaign...and thus a different strategy can be used and not onli one
in fact,we already hav the battle game for those who fancy onli battles

Rankings USED to be partially based on your "economy" (i.e. how many resources one had), but that was removed as if you had a great economy rating, but hadn't really fought any major wars, you could still be ranked pretty high. Basically this doesn't promote fighting, which is ultimately what this game is about (it is WAR Online), and what makes it fun.

In theory this is a logical idea, but in addition to what DoRW said, it also makes the acquisition of a new castle a HUGE gain. So if you're in a 12 person map, and the person next to you goes inactive after initially getting some resource buildings and you snag their castle, you don't just get that extra 1000 gold each turn, and another barracks, you get a MASSIVE bump in your spending power (albeit a one time jump). This would give that one person who was lucky enough to be next to an inactive (and yes this is LUCK, you can scout all you want, but if the inactive castle is on the other side of the map, you AREN'T getting it for free) a huge advantage over everyone else.

AFAIK Req wants to downplay the advantage gained by having an extra castle, and this would do just the opposite. While granted when I HAVE an extra castle this would be a really nice bonus, if you were my opponent, would you be so happy that I now have THAT many more resources at my disposal?

I will be the loathesome detractor here, and say that it will not "add" to the game.

Genghis- It sounds like the old system you talked about had the resources weighted way to heavy as far as their effect on the rankings.

Yes it was rather heavily weighted (i.e. half)--we had 2 "sub" rankings, a military ranking and an economy ranking.

However, if there is an economy ranking of ANY sort, I am of the personal belief (and I believe Req is as well, though obviously I can't speak for him) that this will decrease the benefits of warfare. That is bad (I think we would all agree on that). Even if it's a slight decrease, it's still a small step in the wrong direction.

But that's just my opinion.

how any resources one had?...tat should just be partial of the networth tat should be calculated
it should consists more of the army u had,castles and buildings instead
and of coz...half weight of the final ranking is a bit too much
why not quater?
at least tat way,we still hav at least a lil bit of diff strategy
and not fully by killing sumthing
ex.i`m supposely leading tat game with onli 10 turns left but suddenly out of nowhere(maybe in a 40 players game),two of the top ranking player started fighting each other and one of the went atop u but u actually hav enuh army to even eliminate both of them,but they are just too far for u to even do anything
aint tat s---?
:p

A kill rank alone also makes it a tad unfair for two close-fighting players when one other guy gets an easy kill

But asides from that....you ALSO have to remember, not -all- players have only one castle, so that has to be taken into account too

Un-named inactive castles should no longer be hooked to a stockpile ANYWAY, with the player being out
Failing that, simply cut the feature off for say, the opening 15 turns. Perhaps longer, 25-30 turns - otherwise the multi player may have too much of an easy time exploiting this.

The market will be more interesting to look at

Last but not least, on maps where resources are more precious, the player is unlikely to have a stockpile, so the gain will be less to counter the value of the resources.

(I probably repeated one person at least already...but if I did - it was because it was a GOOD POINT )

When a castle is taken, the conqueror should get some, a small amount should be lost, and the loser should get the majority. This would give the loser enough resources to try and retake the castle, while still rewarding the conqueror.