Some ideas: raiding, seiging, spell AI and more..

[baruk]

I hear much about about raiding and castles on this forum, there's probably no way that they'll be changed that will suit everyone, but I thought I'd punt out some ideas.

An initiative system for army movement

This sort of thing has been mentioned before, this is how I would figure it:
An army group consists of all the troops and commanders from one province moving to the same destination.
Each army group has an inertia value (rounded to the nearest whole number). An initiative roll of 1d6 (non-open ended) is made for each group, added to the inertia value to give that turn's initiative value.
The movement phase is split into 10 numbered segments, with an extra combat phase at the end of each segment. Each army group moves in the segment corresponding to its initiative value. If an army has initiative greater than 10, it moves in segment 10.
The inertia value (IV) equals log (army size) + (10/action points value of slowest unit in group). For armies consisting entirely of fliers, IV = log (army size).

How it works: initiative rolls are made, armies move in each segment, if opposing armies are in the same province at the end of a segment, a battle occurs. If an army fights a battle before it gets a chance to move, it will attempt to complete the movement order with the survivors later in the movement phase (initiative could be slowed by +1 for each pre-movement battle). Retreating armies resolve their movement after the end of the movement phase.

Removing the castle seige speedbump

Two new orders:
- Attack and storm castle. Becomes available when an army is ordered to move into a province with an enemy held castle.
- Seige and storm castle. Available to seiging armies.

How it works: with these orders, armies will storm the castle as soon as castle defence reaches zero, instead of waiting that extra turn.
Moving and taking castles the same turn may be a bit powerful, so I would suggest the seiging value of units that have moved (or gated in) the same turn be halved as a retooling cost.

Gateway and teleport balance

Commanders and units that have travelled using gateway, teleport or cloud trapeze will now suffer from planar sickness. If said troops fight a battle the same turn as their "jump", they start with a fatigue penalty: 20 fatigue times the size class of the unit.
Note that a size 6 sphinx would start with 120 fatigue were it to use teleport offensively. This change should be enough to allow sphinxes the use of teleport once again whilst being fairly balanced.
Faerie trod and wind ride are unaffected.

Spell AI and gem usage

At the moment, the spell AI will "means test" spell orders, and will refrain from casting listed spells (especially those with gem costs) if deemed unnecessary based on the strength of enemy forces. This was a change made when people complained about their mages' personal gem supply being wasted on enemy scouts and remote summonings.
There is nothing worse in the game than when the AI wrongly chooses to ignore my orders. I would rather it followed my orders, and suffer the consequences. I can always change my orders, but I can't easily compensate for what the AI might do.
My solution: mages start each battle in the same turn with the number of gems they started the turn with. For example, if I give my mage 3 gems, he will start each battle in the following turn with 3 gems. Gems will be taken off the mage at the end of the turn, the amount removed based on whichever battle the mage expended the most of that type of gem. Blood slaves, however, should be expended from battle to battle as normal.
With this set up, the AI can stop attempting to curtail gem use, and mages can go back to using gems with abandon.
The only exception should be the death match, where gems should be used from batle to battle.
My reasoning is that neither the order's available or the spell AI are sophisticated enough to deal with multiple battles in a turn, or a crafty human attacker, when it comes to gem usage. It seems reasonable to give gem using battle mages this kind of boost.

Gem generating items

Limit the total gem output from each type of item on a per province basis. Total gem output available (per type of item) equals friendly dominion strength in the province plus province magic rating (-3 to +3), with a minimum value of one. Additional items above the limit produce no gems. In zero/negative dominion provinces, only one item of each type can produce gems.
For example, if one of my provinces has 10 dominion and a +3 magic rating, then I can productively hoard 13 clam of pearls, 13 fever fetishes and 13 earth blood stones there.


What do you think, forum people? Sensible ideas or frivolous junk?

[Graeme Dice]

baruk said:
- Attack and storm castle. Becomes available when an army is ordered to move into a province with an enemy held castle.
- Seige and storm castle. Available to seiging armies.

If I've spent several hundred gold on a castle, why should I not be able to use it for defense?

Commanders and units that have travelled using gateway, teleport or cloud trapeze will now suffer from planar sickness. If said troops fight a battle the same turn as their "jump", they start with a fatigue penalty: 20 fatigue times the size class of the unit.

Again, what's the point of this change?

There is nothing worse in the game than when the AI wrongly chooses to ignore my orders. I would rather it followed my orders, and suffer the consequences. I can always change my orders, but I can't easily compensate for what the AI might do.

No, it's far worse to have all your gems wasted when a person sends a single casting of arouse hunger at your armies before they attack.

My solution: mages start each battle in the same turn with the number of gems they started the turn with. For example, if I give my mage 3 gems, he will start each battle in the following turn with 3 gems.

Do you have any idea how overpowered this is? You've just tripled the number of gems that any mage will have.

Limit the total gem output from each type of item on a per province basis.

I've got a better idea. People should stop whining about gem generating items and play on smaller maps. I'm starting to get really frustrated with the people who want to change the game to make it yet another fantasy strategy game where magic doesn't have any significant effects.

[Soapyfrog]

Graeme Dice said:
I've got a better idea. People should stop whining about gem generating items and play on smaller maps. I'm starting to get really frustrated with the people who want to change the game to make it yet another fantasy strategy game where magic doesn't have any significant effects.

How would removing/nerfing gem generating diminish the effect of magic on the game? Seems to me it would make a broader range of magical strategies feasible because a) you will be more tempted to use your gems on something other than horading and b) the game will not be a wish-rush.

I am tired of people defending gem-generating items. They break large map games outright, turning them into a micro-endurance contest, and SEVERELY imit the range of possible successful strategies.

I like larger maps, but I dont like the way they devolve as they do under the current setup, where essentially you must hoard to survive, and failing to hoard is a death sentence.

So I won't "just play on smaller map", thanks.

[Zen]

If you want I'll take 2 seconds make up a banner and upload a Mod that totally takes out all the gem producers so that the large games can, not be dominated by non-site-producing magics. The best of both worlds, yeah?

[Graeme Dice]

Soapyfrog said:
How would removing/nerfing gem generating diminish the effect of magic on the game?

Fewer magical resources means that there will be less magic being used in the world.

Seems to me it would make a broader range of magical strategies feasible because a) you will be more tempted to use your gems on something other than horading and b) the game will not be a wish-rush.

The game isn't a wish-rush as it stands. Repeatedly wishing for anything is probably one of the worst possible uses for astral pearls. Doom horrors, despite the amount of hype that surrounds them, die easily to mages on the battlefield. It's impossible to make them immune to all the elements, so you'll always be able to kill them.

I like larger maps, but I dont like the way they devolve as they do under the current setup, where essentially you must hoard to survive, and failing to hoard is a death sentence.

There is no need to "horde" gem-producing items to survive, unless you happen to be playing a game where everybody is sitting around and staring at each other. They give you significant resources, but also leave a huge time-window during which you are extremely vulnerable to attack. Playing more aggressively is the cure for that.

[Soapyfrog]

Graeme Dice said:
Fewer magical resources means that there will be less magic being used in the world.

Absolutely, however I hardly see how this could possibly result in a situation where "magic doesn't have any significant effects".

Gem producing items are not, in ANY WAY, essential to magic being important in the game.

Graeme Dice said:
The game isn't a wish-rush as it stands. Repeatedly wishing for anything is probably one of the worst possible uses for astral pearls..

And a better use for them would be... what?

Graeme Dice said:
There is no need to "horde" gem-producing items to survive, unless you happen to be playing a game where everybody is sitting around and staring at each other. They give you significant resources, but also leave a huge time-window during which you are extremely vulnerable to attack. Playing more aggressively is the cure for that.

This is completely untrue. WIth 17 players on a large map, at least some players will be able to fin the time and space neccessary to horde effectively. These players will win. Period. There is NO counter. In fact if I am super aggressive, then I am practically guaranteeing my own defeat since I will have to expend massive resources to maintain that aggression, whereas someone who is quietly turtling (and is aided by my aggression since I am drawing attention to myself) is not only not having to expend much to defend himself but is also growing his gem economy exponentially. Joy oh bliss.

Even on a "Small" crowded map, hording will become a central strategy for those who emerge form the dogfight. The map would have to be very small indeed for hording not to be of central importance in the late game.

Zen said:If you want I'll take 2 seconds make up a banner and upload a Mod that totally takes out all the gem producers so that the large games can, not be dominated by non-site-producing magics. The best of both worlds, yeah?

Well I do not think that it is neccessary to remove them completely. First, I think it is neccessary to make the required investment much more significant, as you have suggested in another thread. Second, the investment should have a limit... for example not being able to put these items on scouts or other cheap, hidden units would be a big step up.

In any case, obviously had these items never been in the game no one would be bemoaning their lack. In fact I suspect had they not been in the game orginally, and added in a later patch, the reactionaries (like Graeme) would be screaming from the other side of the table...

[Boron]

Soapyfrog said:

And a better use for them would be... what?

You can e.g. convert them to death and summon tartarians , bane lords etc. .
Graeme is probably right that clamhoarding + then wishing is not a too good strategy because someone else will attack you before your clamhoarding pays off because while you start clamhoarding you look a bit weak to the ones who haven't clamhoarded .

[Graeme Dice]

Soapyfrog said:
Gem producing items are not, in ANY WAY, essential to magic being important in the game.

No, but to remove them removes an entire class of strategies.

And a better use for them would be... what?

Forge astral based items or alchemize them into other types of gems and use those.

This is completely untrue. WIth 17 players on a large map, at least some players will be able to fin the time and space neccessary to horde effectively. These players will win. Period. There is NO counter.

Of course there's a counter. That counter is to use diplomacy and convince other people to attack the stronger player. If they are already at the point where they are too strong for the rest of the players combined to defeat, then they would have won anyways. All gem-producing items do is speed up the endgame so that it doesn't drag out for hundreds of turns on larger maps.

In fact if I am super aggressive, then I am practically guaranteeing my own defeat since I will have to expend massive resources to maintain that aggression, whereas someone who is quietly turtling (and is aided by my aggression since I am drawing attention to myself) is not only not having to expend much to defend himself but is also growing his gem economy exponentially.

If you see somebody that is quietly turtling, then attack them. If they are spending resources on gem-producers, then they won't be spending them on their military.

Even on a "Small" crowded map, hording will become a central strategy for those who emerge form the dogfight.

Not really, since the game is likely to be over by turn 30 or so on a typical small map.

In any case, obviously had these items never been in the game no one would be bemoaning their lack. In fact I suspect had they not been in the game orginally, and added in a later patch, the reactionaries (like Graeme) would be screaming from the other side of the table...

I suggest that you go back and read some of the threads that have already done this issue to death over hundreds of Posts. You'll find out that you've made an incorrect assumption. I used to believe that clams were too powerful, but that was months ago.

[Kel]

Soapyfrog said:
This is completely untrue. WIth 17 players on a large map, at least some players will be able to fin the time and space neccessary to horde effectively. These players will win. Period. There is NO counter.

Yes, if 17 players all started hoarding and hoping noone attacked them, then the ones who didn't get attacked would have a head start. Much like they would probably be more powerful if they were just researching or site searching or taking indies or any other part of the game. If you are left alone and noone messes with you, you will probably be stronger than people who engaged in early wars and it has nothing to do with clams.

Seriously, how many times have you been beaten by people who did nothing the whole game but build clams ? I don't mean they had a dozen clams because they didn't have anything to do with their water supply, I mean how many people did nothing but clam thae majority of the game ? How many times ? 10 ? 20 ? 30 ?

- Kel

[Chazar]

Soapyfrog said:
I like larger maps, but I dont like the way they devolve as they do under the current setup, where essentially you must hoard to survive, and failing to hoard is a death sentence.

I wonder how people determine that the clam-hoarder has won because of clam-hoarding, especially since everybody else hoarded as well?
I've yet to see that clam-hoarding is a successful strategy at all, but on the other hand I do not play maps with more than 150 provinces, which are already way to large for me.

I also wonder why people like larger maps if they do not like the way the game behaves on such maps...