Since Req seems adamant about fixing the current system, and I have real work to do , I’ve given this some thought. What follows is my solution to the problem of being able to do “too much” in one move with your troops. I don’t contend it is perfect, or polished at this point, but it’s the only solution I’ve come across that doesn’t create more problems then it solves.


Limiting Battle Point Reclamation

The only way to limit activity, outside of restricting movement entirely, is limiting how many battle points each unit has access too. Currently all units regain bp at the same rate, meaning a spearmen and HC will both be at full bp in the same amount of time; meaning, basically, that a spearmen and HC will both be able to attack the same number of times in a given turn. Between these two units there is a vast discrepancy in damage done, so much so that an all HC army will be able to do a great deal of damage over several turns, whereas a spearmen army (assuming normal size) will do significantly less. Since the main problem Req brings up is that players can do ‘too much’ damage in one turn, my solution is to reduce the rate at which higher level troops regain bp.

It would work something like this: the lowest level melee troops would regain 100 bp at a good clip, lets say per turn. Expert level troops would regain at a slower rate, let’s say a turn and a quarter. Master level troops would regain at a turn and a half. This inherently limits the amount of damage high level troops can do in protracted battles, but does not significantly diminish their short term effectiveness.

Another thing that would be adjusted is decline in bp with movement. Low level troops may loose at the normal rate, while experts loose at half that rate. Master level troops would not loose any bp in movement, meaning that their initial capabilities would not be diminished because of the slower bp regain rate. The reason this is done is to ensure that master troops can move without fear of being ineffective for a while when they reach their target.

This solves the problem admirably in my mind because
1: troop movement is not effected, meaning armies are just as fast as they always were
2: the troops effectiveness in short term battles is just as high, if not higher, keeping the rate of play fast by not slowing down small battles
3: In drawn out conflicts the heavier troops will not be able to strike as many times, reducing the offensive damage potential of the most powerful troops, checking the amount of damage the player can do in one turn.
4: Does not require massive reworking or play adjustments, merely shifts in strategy

Players would need, in practice, a mix of powerful units (for a strong initial strike, and for defense) and bulk (low end) units (for offensive strength during long battles) if they wished to be successful. This simulates reality to some extent, for while a small group of HC would devastate spearmen initially the spearmen would eventually win out over the exhausted HC because they can get off more attacks (even if those attacks are weaker). It also encourages players to use a diverse mix of units, not just rely on master level troops.

Ranged Troops

I’ll handle ranged units separately, since bp for them is somewhat a reflection on ROF (rate of fire). Archers are the standard unit, and would be handled just as low level melee units are with a fast recharge but significant bp loss in movement. Arbalesters are another matter though, and this version would require a bit of reworking on their part. Realistically they should reload in at least double the time it takes archers to do so, but I’ll suggest a more reasonable %150 bp regain (same as master melee). Since they have a reduced ROF their att value should be bumped up significantly, even to the point where it rivals that of marksmen (as realistically the crossbow is extremely lethal at close range). The reason I say att value instead of damage is that crossbows can do about as much damage to an armored knight as they can to a militiamen, thus keeping the att value high would simulate them ‘overcoming’ a units armor rather then just doing more damage. The damage should be bumped up a bit, but their primary value should be att. I would also submit that their skill be changed from ‘normal melee’ to a ‘shield’ type: when in def mode Arbalesters would gain %50 ranged protection (simulating their deployment of shields to hide behind). In addition they can do normal damage against ‘siege type units’ with ranged protection (including ballista, but not squires). This would turn them into powerful close range defensive units to park in a castle or just behind the front line and would give them a worthy place in any player’s army. As for movement, I would say bp loss at half the rate of archers.

For marksmen I would recommend %125 regain rate (keep in mind this means %25 longer, not faster) as well as no battle points lost in movement. They are still fleet of foot, and powerful at a range, but not quiet as effective when used as one’s sole ranged unit in long battles (due to the longer regain time).

Ballistae are an interesting item, and a bit iffy, but I would say they should be geared towards making the most out of their large stack attack bonus. This means the %150 recharge rate and high movement loss (perhaps even full bp loss with movement) but improved att value and damage. It would take the machines a lot of effort to set up, and reload, but when they send their projectiles into large enemy armies they are going to be felt.

These longer regain times for ranged may also make players choose their shots a bit more, especially with ballista. Should you attack that unit now and wait for a reload or hold off a bit in order to hit a more vulnerable/valuable target. The main thing is that ranged units (particularly Marks and Balli) are no longer spewing out damage at the rate they were, fulfilling our goal of reducing how much can be done in one turn (especially in extended battles). As a nice bonus we also get some functionality out of Arbalesters, which few people use at the moment.

Again, this is just a rough outline of what I have in mind, the values aren’t intended to be absolute. Hopefully this will at least give people a place to begin in thinking about this issue: either a solid base to start from, or inspiration to think up something else. Please post any issues, comments, additions or questions; I’m more then willing to clarify anything that isn’t clear.

Also note that this is primarily geared towards the tick based game…I could see it functioning in a turn based, but for now consider this mainly a fix for regular camp games.

A very well thought out plan so far, and it deserves more comments and adjustments. This is a better fix than Req's idea of limiting total play per turn.

www.mpogd.com
Vote a vote.

Mog, anything would be a better idea than Req's thing.

And please stop calling this a "fix." Is there really anything wrong with the current system? If so, I fail to see it. I'd rather Req spend time making sure all the CURRENT features work.

Sage, enough of your stubborn nature!

As Req has said before, he wants to experiment with multiple ways to fashion the game, to find features that the players enjoy the most, and the ones we hate.

Once Req has experimented enough and is confident that he has developed the best game possible, than we'll stop with the fixes. And when that day comes, you can bet your rear-end we'll have one sweet game on our hands. Until then, contribute!

I agree with Sage

Nice ideas Blood.
Its funny that just last week I was thinking about some sort of "fatigue" system and whether it would work.

I like your idea in the sense that it creates more strategy between different levels of troops. Thats always a good thing.

eg, I had often thought of Balista as a hugely powerful weapon that could really only fire once every 2 or 3 turns. I just didnt know how to make it happen in the game.

I suppose we could have levels of BP regen.
1. 100% per turn
2. 75% per turn
3. 50% per turn
4. 34% per turn

This would simulate troops attacking at full strength every 1 turns, 1.5 turns, 2 turns & 3 turns.
Of course this assumes they are in the middle of battle.

ALthough, would this just force players to "cycle" front-line troops? Attack with Wave-1 then next turn use Wave-2, then back to Wave-1.


Another simple idea I had last week was if a Unit attacks 2 turns in a row, it would have to "rest" for 1 turn. I dont know how effective it would be tho. I have seen it in some table-top games and it appears to work well there.

Last Edited : Tuesday, 3 May 2005 - 20:59

Secondly, I'm not sure if this addresses my original concern of using X units per turn.

eg, in a Campaign, i could in theory activate over 50,000 points worth of troops in 1 single turn.
It has nothing to do with the possible damage inflicted but rather the tactical mechanics of moving so many units in one turn without the opponent being able to do anything.

despite what some may think, this actually reduces the true tactical & strategic nature of the game. its also why the best TBS games dont do it this way.


the other thing to remember, is the new version is already very different to this game. we have 1-pop units (or small armies), not these massive 500 pop armies.
so there will be more units on the field to manouver (more tactical).
the zone & build system is completely different.
i'm even looking to add a height system at some point.

so you cant think of each idea as relating soley to this old version, but rather how it might affect the new version with 1pop units.


and finally, this doesnt mean thats how it will go.
i want the game to be strategic and balanced and fair, but in the end it still has to be fun.
if a "good idea" ends up making things less fun during actual game-play it wont be around for long.

In slow games, slowing things down more would be intolerable. My patience is already stretched to the limit. I'm just glad I'm getting back into 12 hours games

Yes, Req, I see attacking in waves coming forth as the new strategy. Of course, we 'sorta' do that now, so the strategy wouldn't be introduced, just reinforced.

I'm still against slowing the game down, at any rate. I like the pace of the game, and I'd rather you do something crazy and change some other basic game mechanic than to slow down the game...lets bring back double trouble, or maybe try fiddling with ranged troops' range again...but leave the game pace the same.

I considered your idea Req, to have the recharge rate be as long as three turns, but I figured that it would slow down the game play considerably and make people, perhaps, decide against using those high level units.

However, I could see that being a possibility. If we bumped up HC damage, so that a 1/3 attack, though not great, was still useful, I think it could work well. Especially in the new system, their initial strikes could be devastating, but they would not be able to strike as often as low level troops. In effect, they could not do as much offensive damage after the first strike, but they present a powerful defensive force.

The thing to avoid with this set up is NOT having to cycle your units. An overly long recharge would force players to do this, but if it were coupled with increased functionality players would not 'have to' rotate units (because they would still be effective fighters even if attacking at reduced strength). I think it would take some troop reworking to ensure continued functionality, but longer recharge times are a good possibility.


With something like this I would also recommend a diminishing retal instead of a full one every four hours. In other words, each successive attack on a unit would be more effective, but that unit could still fight back to some extent on every turn. Macemen's advantage would be, then, that they retal with full strength on every attack. This would help alleviate the problem of players being able to do 'too much' on a turn by limiting the number of free shots they can get in. It would force them to weigh every attack they make.

To really speak to Req’s problem though, of being able to MOVE that many troops in a turn, I think we need to have a sliding scale for movement point reclamation as well. Low level troops would regain at a fairly slow level, up to master troops who would regain movement fairly quickly. To balance this in battle, however, the amount of movement points a unit regains would be proportional to the amount of bp it has. In other words, if an HC unit has only one third of its bp, it will only regain movement at 1/3 of its normal rate. So if a HC has full bp he will be able to move very quickly across the field. However, if he engages in combat, his movement regain rate will be greatly slowed, being influenced by his current bp. For low level troops this means that they will always be somewhat slow on the field of battle, since they will loose bp in movement and their movement regain rate will drop even lower. However, in tight battle situations they will move more quickly as they will regain their bp (and thus movement rate) fairly quickly.


This slows down battles, but at the same time does not limit troop movement normally, or affect how many units a player can move. I think the one thing we have to realize here is that limiting the number of troops movable in an FFA game is not possible, because a player sometimes needs to manage multiple fronts and engage in multiple battles. It’s not fair that the player fighting three enemies can only move one third as many units.

To incorporate ranged units into this system, archers have medium movement regain, arbs slow (keep in mind this is regain, not movement rate), balli high (since they will already be loosing bp in movement, and have only seven movement to begin with, we need to make them movable), and marksmen high. I’ll also put out that maybe marksmen should have a %50 bonus to bp for movement purposes. For example, if the unit only had %50 bp, their movement rate regain would be at %75 (50+ half or 25). This would give them and advantage as quick raiders.

Or, in fact, maybe all upper level troops should have that bonus, or at least have it available to them…the proposed system may in fact slow things down too much. I don’t know at this point, but I think basic premise solves the main problem Req brings up.

Last Edited : Wednesday, 4 May 2005 - 12:45

Interesting idea, however, I think it is a little too complicated and would be very slow.

Remember each standard attack usually uses up 100% BP. Which means the next turn will regain 0 MP. The next turn (in a 12hr game) would regain only 8% MP. etc..
It would take a very long time to reach 100% MP.

It's also impossible to implement anything even close in the Turn-Based Battles & Duels. And I would like all game mechanics to be able to cross over between the different game types so you dont have to learn a whole new set of rules to play.


The idea I had a while ago for movement/combat was to incorporate a type of "Mode System".
You can set each unit into a specific "mode" which would effect the efficiency or perhaps regen-rate of BP% and MP.

eg.
Normal : 75% MP - 75% BP
Combat : 50% MP - 100% BP
Movement : 100% MP - 50% BP

Of course this is a very basic 3 option idea. This could be expanded to include DefensePoints%, and split into even more groups with more varied %'s.

You could also select (at the barracks) the default "mode" each new unit would start with when creating new units.

Changing "modes" would either use up all MP & BP% (and require 100% of each) or some other kind of requirement to ensure you cant change "mode" too easily especially in battle.

On the issue of too many unit moves per turn...

"It’s not fair that the player fighting three enemies can only move one third as many units."

Whether players are limited or not this issue is the same.
If each player is limited to 1000points, it will be 1000 vs 3000 points.
With no limit it could be 5000 vs 15000 points (as each enemy is also NOT limited).

So using gangups like that is not really a valid point.

And so this issue still stands IMO.

I dont want to "slow" the game, but rather prevent the unbalanced nature of one player being able to "Activate" too many units in 1 turn while the other player can do nothing.

I think it would be good if we could move say 5 units into position at a time but for example suppose we have moved a total of 10 units into position but haven't used them to attack even if they are able to attack.
Now we move another 5 units into position and also attack with them. I feel that if the other 10 units are still able to make an attack WITHOUT moving them, then a massive attack of all 15 units should be allowed under those circimstances.

TR

I agree with the complexity issue, it certainly would be a lot of reworking, and you pointed out a wee oversight in my calculations . I always liked the 'mode' idea though, for whatever reason that didn't fly the last time it was brought up. However, if you're willing to give it a go this time around I'd certainly be on board. I like the diversity of options different modes give players, and anything that increases strategy is ok by me.

I'd suggest maybe a one, two, or three turn limit on mode switching over a bp/mp cost though. We’re not trying to penalize players for using them, we just don't want players to unreasonably exploit them.


I still think the gangbanging is a problem though. I may have 10000 pts of troops in battle, and my three enemies, since they aren’t in full blown attack mode yet, have combined the same about of points together. They will be able to move three times as many troops as I can even though we have equal troop totals.

Or, in the case of multiple fronts, I could have three battles going on with three separate players. Assume also that these are relatively small battles with equal numbers on both sides. If each enemy player is not engaged elsewhere I will have to divide my movement and attacks by three whereas each player will be able to devote as much as %100 of their movement/attack allowance to every battle I’m involved in.

What I'm getting at is that when three weaker opponents take on a much stronger enemy the armies may well be of equal size. However, if each player is limited in how many troops they can move, the weaker players will always be favored simply because they can move more of their units. Players will figure this out, and if they know you are involved in an important battle elsewhere that demands your full attention, they may very wall attack one of your satellite bases with impunity, because they know you need to spend those action points elsewhere. If this is something you, and the players, are willing to accept then ok, it’s doable, but it’s a cost and vulnerability we should be aware of.

I'd just like to say, again, that I'm very much in favor of the mode idea, and glad to see it back on the table. Even if we adopt the fixed units per turn strat I'd be in favor of it.

If we acknowledge the vulnerability I mentioned above then fixed units could work. To solve that problem we might make the number of units movable depended on something less arbitrary. We could, for example, make it based on the number of commander units that are in the area. If a player had x number of comms he could move x number of units in a radius around them. If a player has no comms in the area he is limited to the ‘set’ number of troop movements. In other words, players have a base limit of how many troops they can move, comms grant the ability to move units in a radius around them for free. It’s kind of like how cell phones work, you have your anytime min which are always helpful, but then you have the free night and weekend min for when you need that extra time; sure you need to plan ahead so you make that call late at night, but you’re not spending those precious (and quite expensive ) anytime min.

Perhaps we could even have something like overage charges, where players are forced to pay gold for every unit movement/attack they make beyond what their base value and comm radius will let them (increasing exponentially from the first overage unit). I know that there’d be quite a few times I’d spend a few thousand gold to be able to move key units in battle.

No need for manual mode switches. If your taveling your traveling, if your in battle your in battle. BP and MP can reflect this.

"one player being able to "Activate" too many units in 1 turn while the other player can do nothing."

Well, it IS a turn based game. The other player should learn to be patient and wait their turn.

How does all of this relate to me being the future undisputed champion of turn based 1v1 campaigns?

:p

Ok ok, I go now already..

yes, perhaps units can only change mode once every 2 or 3 turns.

i will have to think about modes some more, and try to come up with some more advanced options. the basic 3 doesnt really add much to gameplay in the sense that their usage is pretty obvious.


another idea i had while looking at a more indepth economic system, is perhaps have each unit have an "upkeep" of sorts.

so instead of an outright purchase, you would spend X resources on a unit, but no gold (or food).
then you would pay Gold or Food each turn.
this is nothing too new, as I have seen this in a few games before.

BUT, what about instead of just that, you pay the Gold or Food for each Unit that has been "activated" that turn.

ie, you'd only pay Gold to the troops you are actually giving orders to. those that dont move, dont cost anything.

and of course if you run out of Gold, and thus cant pay your troops, you cant move them! (they still defend).


and since the game is based on Zone ownership, and Gold income comes from each Zone you control, this also defines how many troops you can use. The bigger your empire, the more troops you can have.
Of course, if you spend all your Gold on techs & buildings, you also run the risk of no Gold to use troops.

any thoughts?

Yes stop giving me a headache and leave the combat system alone.

Are there times when one player has a significant advantage over another player based on army size? Yes

Is being able to use all of your troops in a turn a reasonable expectation? Yes

Is limiting the use of troops a reasonable expection? No

My example is based off of real life.
Recently a country invaded another country along with several others. Would it have been reasonable to expect any of the coutries involved to only use a portion of the forces they had there? No, because when you are involved in a war you want to overcome your enemy with as few losses as possible. If the troop advantage is that large, then the other player needs to learn how to play, not have the game creator punish the good player for knowing how to play. The only times I have ever seen uneven armies is late in the game, when an opponent has gotten several free territories to work with, or when the other player is an idiot.

Even with one pop units this combat system still works. There will be a lot of blood spots scattered throughout the land but it just means players will have more tactics to use. Having more troops will mean that flanking maneuvres can be performed.

Currently splitting your forces isn't a good option, unless you have an ovewrwhelming superiority with troops or have no choice. In slow 9 I split my forces and while I have slightly hurt my opponent, he has slaughtered many of my troops.

I didn't dislike bloods original idea, making the different units more valuable. But if you go along that line then you might need to alter the barracks so a player can select more than one or two troop types. I was thinking something along the lines of a percentage can be set for each troop type that is produced. So if you have a troop type that can only produce 4 units in a turn setting that troop to 25% production would produce 1 unit a turn and you would have 75% production for other units.

The mode idea has merit, but there should be advantages as well as the disadvantages for taking one type over the other. Currently what we have gives us back full BP and MP in one turn. Standard should allow troops to get their full MP and 75-80% BP back. Movement should allow the troops to have more movement say 1.5 times and regain MP faster While BP is recoverd at 50% while losing double the normal BP movement cost. Combat would need a couple of modes one would provide them with 100% BP recovery and less MP 75-80% recovery. Another would allow the player to switch to a charge mode that gives the player a movement and attack boost the turn he activates it, the attack boost would come at the cost of defence and would remain until the player had enough BP to switch back. So while his unit has the attack boost it would take more damage from having a weeker defence. Charge mode wouldn't cost to enter but it would require more BP and MP to exit. Finally a defence mode, BP regen at 100% half MP when the unit is advancing and more MP when the unit is retreating.

well i only read halfe of this but did anyone bring up the fact that you could just build basic troops to the point they do 1k dmg
this would toataly defeat the idea of having you top troops hit slower because they hit harder as the basic troops are gonna hit just as hard only more offten
i think progresivly rasing the dmg limit for expert then master troops would solve this at least to a degree if this is the way req wants to go and even perhaps giving them a few extra mp so they can get to the fight faster for there tide turnig hit

as for the mass movment probom the solution is realy less armys
sort of simulating a suply line or at least prodution power you would need more millitary accamamys
you would only get say 10 armies to start whith and say 3 more per extra accadamy although this would proboly increase the probolom of large basic stacks limiting the advantage of master lvl troops