Forthcoming patch notes

Edi · #1 July 21st, 2008, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Zeldor said:
Another thing is mindless commanders vanishing at turn50. That is not funny.

Has been explained in the bug discussion thread. It's WAD and it's going to stay that way. Just how many mindless commanders are there? The golem? With the golem it is, as per the bug discussion thread explanation, thematic. The soulless from Army of the Dead? Those two are the only ones I can think of.

If someone happened to use the Life After Death spell to get upkeep-free soulless mages and lost those to rout, it can also be interpreted as the magic keeping them around as soulless puppets unraveling due to being overstrained. Exceptions can't be coded for every specific instance, so people are just going to have to live with it.

Quote:

Zeldor said:
Many battles just deserve to be resolved on battlefield, not by some virtual turn limit that forces whole army to spread into neighbouring provinces.

So let's say the turn limit is raised to 75/100, which is about the most realistic we could expect. Does this alter the situation at all? Not much, and there must still be a way to resolve a combat that does not stretch to infinity. The salient point is that every player is expected to bring enough resources to bear to actually finish things and if they don't, then it's too bad for them.

Zeldor · #2 July 21st, 2008, 07:55 AM

Edi:

I will have to talk with KO about that when I have a chance

And yes, it means the Golem, the easiest alternative to Tartarians. The SC of choice for earth nations. I also think that gargoyle is mindless.

And yes, 25 turns more will change a lot. Probably resolve 75% problems with losing because enemy routed too fast etc.

Tifone · #3 July 21st, 2008, 08:04 AM

I still don't understand why should it be raised but if the devs think it's necessary I will of course adapt even if not understanding

Long life to pacific solutions - Peace at you Zeldor

(I think KO reads our threads and makes his consideration by himself?

but good luck with it, what else can I say)

Sombre · #4 July 21st, 2008, 08:21 AM

I think the arguments as to why it should be raised are fairly clear. I don't mind it that much but there are definitely pros and cons.

Tifone · #5 July 21st, 2008, 08:37 AM

I don't want to sound an unrequested "adviser" or "i-am-the-smart-guy". But a (humble and just one of the possible ones) solution came maybe to my mind, so I'd like to expose it at the attention of you experts for any comment - stone me alive if you wish

.

Wouldn't it be nice if, regardless of the turn, when the whole enemy army has been routed (the "The armies of XXX has routed"), it has, let's say 5 or 10 more turns to retreat all the units, and then the ones remaining on the battlefield of the defeated side - the slow, fatigued ones, the mindless, the phantasm, the unretreating ones, the immobiles - disappear? They didn't make it, they were unable to rout or "out of autonomy", so the winning army and even the paesants of the nation killed/dismantled them?
Wouldn't it be logical and resolving all the problems you have with turn limit?

I feel in real discomfort suggesting things that might take too much time to the devs to implement, or changing the gameplay (that I really like).
But if you guys think at this issue as a problem, maybe this needs to be repaired someway, and imho this one could be a nice, logical solution which doesn't create endless battles (sorry, an hyperbole to talk about the 200! turns long battles someone talked about)

Peace, with humility your friend Tifone

Zeldor · #6 July 21st, 2008, 08:41 AM

Tifone:

The problems is that maybe it would be better, but we should make reasonable requests for devs. Increasing turn limit is easy. Changing mechanics take a lot of time and we can get many other things coded instead.

atul · #7 July 21st, 2008, 09:08 AM

This talk about increasing turn limit by some fraction reminds me of Murphy's Law. Anyone know why the lost thing is always in the last place you look into? Because you stop looking afterwards. Why some stuff appears to always happen in conjunction with something else totally unrelated? Because you only make the mental note when the conjunction happens, not when it doesn't.

My point being, if the limit would be set to 75/100 it wouldn't do much. Soon people would complain it's too little since they always remember the instances when there was only two crippled guys fleeing too slowly, or something. Seriously, if berserking thugs without a fear aura or area effect weapons kill chaff for 75 rounds, they've caused huge amounts of damage. Maybe they just drop dead from exhaustion after that, but surely they've done a lot. Killing opponent's thugs by flooding them under your own dead corpses is costly and really last-ditch effort, not something easily and cheaply done (like those blessed giants with minimal gear).

With Golems, well, their mindlessness status makes them immune to so many conventional Bad Stuff, that they might get some malus.

Anyway, my opinion in a nutshell: let the little guys accomplish also something. But people can and will disagree, it's probably just a matter of opinion.

EDIT: Oops didn't notice a new page of posts. Meza green! Anyway, given the examples, it would seem to me that there is a huge focus on defences in those thugs. Shouldn't they try to put some into, you people know, offence too? Shouldn't be a surprise they can't take big armies by themselves, they're just holding back.

Tifone · #8 July 21st, 2008, 08:43 AM

Twan - I take your point. You sent your SC to slaugthering the enemies in a province, he is in the good position but the time ends. The month is finished and he didn't kill everybody. If this game was having a system in which a province can has an ingoing battle on, this should be this way. But this is not the case at all. So, should your werewolf be closed with the enemy army in an endless limbo where he can kill everybody in all the time he wants, and the enemy being unable to receive reinforcements for all 100 turns (which is the double of the current battle-time)? mmh. It doesn't seem the solution to me. neither mine is very valid in this situation, I admit, but neither the limbo one. So? We don't have a solution. Maybe someone else has one in mind?

vfb · #9 July 21st, 2008, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Tifone said:
... You sent your SC to slaugthering the enemies in a province, he is in the good position but the time ends. The month is finished and he didn't kill everybody. If this game was having a system in which a province can has an ingoing battle on, this should be this way. But this is not the case at all. So, should your werewolf be closed with the enemy army in an endless limbo where he can kill everybody in all the time he wants, and the enemy being unable to receive reinforcements for all 100 turns (which is the double of the current battle-time)? mmh. It doesn't seem the solution to me. neither mine is very valid in this situation, I admit, but neither the limbo one. So? We don't have a solution. Maybe someone else has one in mind?

One suggestion was for attacking armies to retreat to a random neighboring friendly province when the "battle timer" runs out, instead of just evaporating in a puff of bodily vapours. That's only for awake, mobile units in the attacking army, of course, and only helps if you have a province to retreat to. And it doesn't do much to help VoD.

Tifone · #10 July 21st, 2008, 08:47 AM

Zeldor,

Quote:

Tifone said:
I feel in real discomfort suggesting things that might take too much time to the devs to implement, or changing the gameplay (that I really like).

quoting myself, what a pity ^_^
I'm one for asking reasonable things ONLY to the devs. But asking them to change the somehow realistic gameplay of all the battles, because now has its flaws in some situations you pointed out, in a imho LESS logic and realistic way, just seems weird.
I see I'm the minority, I am not playing the devil's advocate. I just defend the way the game works and suggesting that maybe a more logical solution is possible.