2 Things this game desperately needs

[B0rsuk]

Disband - only at a cost of increasing unrest in that province. You know, annoyed soldiers set loose...

[Sandman]

Why on earth punish the player like that?

[Wauthan]

You guys are way to modest with your wishes. The trick is to make a lot of noise for outrageous things and the developers will consider handing you a few reasonable alterations.

So in order to help the disbandment crowd...

1. Expanded importance of the battlefield. Bonuses and weaknesses dependent on terrain. Range and precision modifications depending on high ground/low ground placement. Battlefield appearance in random. Add Strategy ability (ranging in value +0 to +100) to units that improves the chance for an optimum battlefield. What is "optimum" depends on the composition of your troops (dry flat ground for mostly cavalry, hill for mostly archers, obstacle heavy forest for mostly forestsurvivors, nighttime for most nightvision/undead. Attacker and defender each roll a dice. The lower value is subtracted from the higher value. The side that scored the best value gets to "choose" the battlefield.

2. Fortify order that gives the defender an edge on the battlefield (+50 Strategy). Defenders also get some defensive "buildings", like trenches and ramparts, creating chokepoints and cover.

3. Way better castles. Missile units on castle walls (with 20-50% cover), melee units at castle gate (40-80% cover), mages at castle towers (serious range improvement because of high elevation + 80% cover).

4. Autobuild+Move to province vectoring.

5. Option to disable recruitable independent units at map creation.

6. "Global" events (optional at map creation) to put a bit more random into the singleplayer experience.

There ya go. Proper wishnagging that is.

[jimkehn]

My original thought on number 1 was not well articulated. I didn't mean to suggest that Mages should cast spells and patrol, as defined by catching and executing dissidents, but rather to cast rituals (or preach, or sacrifice, or be empowered, etc)and be able to participate in combat within the province, but outside the castle. My bad.

OTOH...I can see a mage needing to move into the lab, which is inside the walls of the keep, in order to find the necessary bat's ears and consultation of the ancient tomes which are kept in the lab....inside the keep. Along those same lines, The Priestly types would be preaching inside the Cathedral which is inside the walls of the keep also.

But....I find it frustrating to have all that magic power in the province and
1. It is being wasted if you put the mage on patrol and no attack occurs, or;

2. He is going about his daily tasks assumedly oblivious to the battle going on just outside the castle doors where his provincial defenses are in dire need of his services.

Maybe that is the dilemma the devs wanted us to be faced with.

[Gandalf Parker]

I did a quick scan but didnt see answers on the "allies crossing" thing.

A) its a benefit of some nations that they can move their armies thru your territiory (allied or not)

B) there are spells that allow them to move their armies past you (allied or not)

C) There is another way if you want it. Create a "gateway" province. You can just agree on a province that will have no defense and allow each other to keep changing its ownership as they move thru. Or you can build a castle but put no defense. That will help avoid your two armies fighting since yours can be in the castle and allow the other army to slip thru the province. It can work as a crossroads.

[thejeff]

Don't forget the advantage to only having patrollers fight.

Your expensive mages and priests don't get slaughtered by the invading army. Instead they can wait for reinforcements and be deployed to break the siege as needed.

[Loren]

Things needed:

Vectoring.
Disband.
Site search coordination.
Long range movement.

[jimkehn]

thejeff:
Yes, this is a good point. I was thinking more in the line of another option. Like being able to perform Alchemy and it doesn't cost an action.....i.e. the mage may still do something else. Having an action like "Defend Territory". And once that is clicked, have that option change to "Defend Castle". That way, you could decide whether or not to retreat to the castle or stay outside to fight the abominable hordes that wish to see you dead.

Gandalf, your points are well taken, but still miss the point. Changing ownership is not a good option. How does this work when you are building 70 percent of an elephant per turn. Who gets the elephant when ownership changes...or does it disappear? Either way....

If you don't have a spell researched that does what you suggest or if you don't have stealthy units, or the units aren't stealthy that you want to allow....that won't work. I like the castle idea, but costs a lotta money, and leaves that province at risk.

[Taqwus]

Sandman said:
Why on earth punish the player like that?

It's not punishment. It's the logical consequence of your actions.

If you try to break into my place by punching your fist through the glass door and cut yourself, that's a direct consequence, not punishment. My following the trail of blood and beating you with a metal staff would be an example of punishment.

If you tell soldiers that you're suddenly going to stop paying them, during a war, when they're likely far from home, and the now-unemployed band happens to be fairly strong compared to anybody else in the local area -- they aren't necessarily just going to fade away. Hence, the unrest boost. This should be higher if the unrest is already significant and there isn't a remaining garrison that can compare to the newly unemployed.

[Sandman]

Hello? Have I wandered into an alternate universe of fun-sucking vampires?

Would you have to take the soldiers back to their home province to avoid the disband penalty? Why can't we just assume that they make their own way home, like merceneries?