I suggest that total maximum movement points of all units be increased by 1/2 and total maximum battle points of all units be doubled and both MP's and BP's should be allowed to accrue to maximum over a period of 3 turns.
After each turn, 1/3 of the maximum MP's and BP's that can be accrued in 3 turns would be available for attack or use
(i.e. without changing the present hourly tick accruement).

To compensate for the increased movement and power of units that are allowed to accrue the maximum MP's and BP's for 3 turns, Production of troops and of course resources should also be proportionately increased so that victims of attack can survive heavier losses.
The idea is to increase the action in campaigns without causing players to be eliminated more quickly due to sustaining heavier losses but at the same time allowing less stress to players who tend to miss turns for various reasons. Starting forces should also be increased proportionately.

PS:
I think the idea can be adjusted to make it work (i.e. there are all sorts of options that can be considered (e.g. rather than allow a player to be able to move a falch 18 spaces after 3 turns and make an attack with double the present BP's, maybe half of the maximum accrued MP's and BP's would be available to him on one turn and the other half at the end of the next full turn;
but he would continue to get a full half of maximum available until he uses two consecutive half of maximum turns)).
Again the idea is flexible and all increases and amounts can be adjusted to get best results but I have seen some accruement for missed turns in other games without upsetting game balance.

TR

i don't like it, no living horse or footman can't make 90 km a day because didn't move a 2 dys before

I think this idea has potential, it happens to a limited extent already (at least with BP %), but it could help those who are away for a while if further modified.

I'm not sure if the proposed system is the best, but I think it's a good idea to at least discuss.


Also remember that realism does not always translate in the best gameplay. There are a great deal of things in this game that aren't "realistic" but that doesn't mean they don't enhance gameplay. That's what Req really cares about, making a game that is fun/interesting/etc. to play, not that it's incredibly realistic or accurate.

As a matter of fact "docent" I believe that 90 kilometers is approximately 54 to 55 miles and I was reading that a saddle-horse can do 50 miles/day without really being pushed and also a horse used to draw a 1600 lb. artillery unit with wagon can cover 23 miles/day.

Try to think that 55 miles (i.e. 90 km) is the maximum distance for a mounted unit that is well rested and pushed to get an extra 5 or 10 miles and I think the distance is realistic enough.
As a matter of fact I think we could push the distance up even a few more spaces if folks are not happy to lose the present distance/hour-tick/turn (i.e. using the split method of using the accrued MP's and BP's that I suggested as an alternative but possible getting 14 or 16 spaces accrued/half instead of 9 and keeping the non-accrued normal movement at 12).

PS:
Thanks "Genghis"
and yes ... this is just an idea that we can "kick around" to possibly come up with something good along the idea of accruement for people who miss turns.

TR

My 100th post!

i think this whole topic is just about solwing the game down. maybe you should play a 24 hour turn game and pretend its an 8 hour game with bp/mp accruing over 3 turns.

same diff

This idea is not for my benefit because when I do play I don't usually have a problem missing turns so very often. This idea is for people who do complain that they have a problem missing several turns;
but my surprize is on the "other side of the coin".
If certain aspects of the game are slowed as in my first example, then there is the possibility of playing "4 hour turn-based campaigns" (i.e. with hourly increments as now).

If for example a falch can move normally only 7 spaces instead of 12 spaces every 4 hours, then after 12 hours a player who logs every turn would only be able to move that falch a total of 21 spaces ... 7 spaces at a time for 3 turns;
but a player who missed 2 turns would be able to move on his third turn either 18 spaces or 9 spaces each turn until he makes two consecutive moves (i.e. which ever is decided is balanced or possibly as I said with a different arrangement entirely).

In any event ... with a faster game but slower units ... players who have time to log frequently will always find something to do without being able to move across the map in 3 turns while players who miss turns will be able to salvage a good portion of what they missed;
and a player who would like to be able to play faster games but can normally only play the slower 12 hour games might actually indulge in faster games if he is able to adjust to this arrangement.

TR

It's much too dangerous to stack 3 turns moves....because then you can jump directly into or around someone's formation. But there could be a case for say, a 50% stacking (half-turn). For example, it would effectively give you an 18-hour window in the case of 12-hour games...

Yes I have considered that accruing three turns might not be best and I have considered possibly two turns.
It may even be dependent on the "time speed" of the game though but I guess a half turn is an option also.

TR

ok i may agree to 150% of MP,
and Taurus its true for single rider, not for a unit.
I'm just reading a remembers of polish cavalry general.
100-120 km in 3 days for cavalry brigade he cals a hard task.
from 16-17 century we have examples of longer cavalry pushes, but it was a light cavalry (mongols style) and moving without carts, which means fast loose of strenght for that unit

Our seige machines only get 9 MP's "docent"
which would reflect the reduced movement of "burdened draft horses". I know some folks will say the weapons were built at the scene and I will say that they were more realistically assembled from parts brought to the scene of battle on "horse drawn carts".

"docent"
I'm going to reiterate that IMO the realism is close enough for the sake of game play and if this gets approved at 150% accruement for MP's, I'm not inclined to think that it would be to reflect realism but instead to reflect that it was the most acceptable arrangement because of its benefit to the most amount of players;
but yes scouts travel farther than falchs and I believe both of those travel farther than heavy cavalry but at what point was it determined that 3 turns is equal to 90 kilometers?

I said a saddle horse could do 54 miles/day which is approximately 90 kilometers. If we are speaking of 12 hour turns and we are willing to go along with the idea that our "real life day" is equal to 2 twelve hour game turns, then that means the saddle horse can travel 90 kilometers in one day or 2 game turns but in 3 twelve hour turns relative to real life that saddle horse would be able to travel 80 miles or 135 kilometers but in a game with 8 hour turns the horsemen would travel even farther.
The reason I'm laughing is because the faster the game the less realistic (i.e. if we did honestly try to base the movement of units/turn on real life).

TR

Sorry, i dont like this idea at all.

Movement during combat is already TOO large.
12 movement is MASSIVE when in combat, and allows you to outflank most formations.

What good would formations be if you could move even further in 1 turn. Almost useless. Goodbye strategy & tactics. It becomes just another kids game.

Also, BP & MP will not accrue more than the current 150%.
DOing more than 150% in 1 turn is just not acceptible.

Well again,
I know when an idea is just not "up to snuff", but I'm still going to say that what comes to my mind is
"beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" or
"one man's meat is another man's poison".
Another interesting parallel is in the "photoshop" ... when you want to change the size of an image, you are given the option to keep the "aspect ratio" the same (i.e. as you increase the height or the width the other dimension is auto-adjusted to keep a proper proportion).

If this idea is not liked the way I have proposed it, that's fine but I did give alternate proposals and I did suggest reducing speeds of units/turn so that the accrued MP's would not be so great and I did suggest that the acrued MP's could be made available over the next two consecutive turns rather than being allowed to move the entire accrued amout all at once. I did also suggest that two turns of accruement did seem more practical than three turns and I did also think that even only a half of a turn of accruement might be acceptable.

I also suggested increasing troop production to allow for greater losses and finally I did admit that my numbers may not be acceptable but I thought perhaps someone could think of something better (i.e. because I still don't think that giving some incentive in the way of accruement to folks who miss as many as two or three turns on a regular basis while also causing more action to be injected into the game is such a bad idea).

PS:
Twelve spaces may be "Massive" but missing two or three turns is even more massive IMO.

TR

TR- I applaud you for coming up with so many 'creative' suggestions, and defending your ideas. It takes courage to put your thoughts out there publicly at the chance people will shread them to bits. But it also takes courage to accept the fact that your idea wasn't embraced, and move on to your next idea

IMO, I guess the folks that miss two or three turns in a row, "on a regular basis", may need to find a different game to play

Or just accept the fact that consistently missing turns will result in a poor finish for them. If they can't make at least one turn/day (slow games), then they need to stick just with battles when they have the time for them.