| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Miklabjarnir 
Greenhorn
Joined: 07 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 73
|
 Topic: 05Apr13 - Updates
Posted: 08 Apr 2013 at 19:24 |
I think commanders could need some extra work in any case. It seems too cheap to be able to promote somebody to commander without incurring any cost. Commanders have their own tent and supplies, and if they command more than a handful they also should have a staff.
I also think the "one size fits all" approach to officers is bad. At the very least there should be a limit of how many will benefit from the division skills of a commander. A new command skill could take care of this - commanders with no training in command skill can command 32, the rest of the division behave as if there was no commander. Then double the number for each level researched.
Make this command skill the base for size of staff so that each level gains one squire / staff member who can at most carry one complete set of extra equipment. The staff members / squires would be drawn from the rank and file of the same type as the commander, and should only contribute to the defensive strength of the army.
|
 |
Auraya
Postmaster
Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 527
|
Posted: 06 Apr 2013 at 09:07 |
|
Firstly, thank you! Glad to see the fixes and they are much appreciated (especially the report update ;) )
A whole tier of squire research would be kind of awesome - allowing squires but not necessarily having a physical unit. I'd allow equipment to be changed once per research and make it irreversible until the army came home again. So, on the equip box, have primary equipment, secondary, tertiary etc and in the field you can change to each type but once it's changed, it becomes unsuitable for use in battle, it has to be taken home to be repaired or whatever.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 7078
|
Posted: 06 Apr 2013 at 04:45 |
|
I don't see it as being intrinsically right or wrong. The main question is, what will be more or less fun. Having some constraints can make the game more fun. Having too many constraints can make the game less fun. The question is what is the best balance? It could be there is a "right" or "wrong" answer, just a variety of possibilities.
|
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: TEXAS Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 1865
|
Posted: 06 Apr 2013 at 03:20 |
 Mahaut wrote:
Not sure I follow that logic. In a game with mage towers, geomancers and runemasters? Why is there anything intrinsically wrong with magically transported equipment?
|
Good point but this (before it was "fixed") had nothing to do with mage towers, geomancers and runemasters. One could have zero magik researched and still do this.
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
|
Mahaut
Wordsmith
Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Location: North West UK
Status: Offline
Points: 173
|
Posted: 06 Apr 2013 at 00:16 |
Not sure I follow that logic. In a game with mage towers, geomancers and runemasters? Why is there anything intrinsically wrong with magically transported equipment?
|
|
|
|
Albatross
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118
|
Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 23:37 |
Timrath wrote:
For me, this wasn't as much a bugfix, as it was a good feature being taken away from us. I don't see how being able to switch equipment hurt the gameplay. |
Ah, but the point was that the switch could be performed by 'magically' moving equipment from the city to wherever the army happened to be (and vice versa), instantly.
What some players are doing here, is finding a way to keep the feature, but make it a realistic aspect of the gameplay, e.g. carrying extra equipment with the ability to re-equip (at some, as yet to be determined, point) to increase capability, perhaps at some (as yet to be determined) cost.
Edited by Albatross - 05 Apr 2013 at 23:38
|
|
|
|
Timrath
Wordsmith
Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Location: Austria
Status: Offline
Points: 107
|
Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 22:52 |
Grainne wrote:
To be honest I thought Commanders switching out equipment was a very fun and intentional feature; I am sad to see this go. (In fact, I had hoped for a "Solunar" Tournament in light of our Midnight and Sun-Burnished armor!) I'm fairly certain there were "castle guys" who followed the Knights around with all manner of fancy armor and equipment, right? Especially in times of Tournament............. |
I'm 100% behind you! For me, this wasn't as much a bugfix, as it was a good feature being taken away from us. I don't see how being able to switch equipment hurt the gameplay. On the contrary, it gave us a tiny little bit of tactical flexibility. Now it's gone, and I can't imagine anyone being happier for it.
|
|
Nesse
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Oct 2010
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 406
|
Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 17:41 |
Changing armour is fine, and should be possible. Teleporting it out to an army in the field, however, seems a bit strange. I like the squire idea - maybe the squire would be able to carry a limited number (say three) extra sets of equipment? Obviously, if the army suffers defeat, all equipment would be lost, though the unequipped should have a higher chance of getting salvaged.
|
|
Albatross
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118
|
Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 12:53 |
Equipment: Yes, I reported that bug at the last tournament ;o) It was 'useful' in that you could act upon latest scout reports and change your equipment while your army was en-route: perhaps you could remove the equipment if you foresaw certain defeat, or add equipment if you forgot to do so before sending.
I'd support ' overloading' equipment, so that a choice can be made in the battlefield. Minor point: There's then a tricky simulation question of when opposing armies change equipment. Given that our simulation is fairly simple, and presents only limited opportunities for 'phases' for decisions, we could have a situation where both sides change equipment, based on what they see of their enemy, and are no better off after the change.
I suggest that scouts (as a contingent in the army) play a part it making a good assessment of the enemy capability, and therefore be required to enable the changing of equipment.
Being well-equipped might have effects: - contribute to the confidence of an army.
- make the army slower, unless supporting units are used. I like squires, but divisional unit allocation might become complicated if we're not careful. Do we really need squires, or should they be integral to the unit type, e.g. T2 Cavalry already require two horses: is that intended as a choice at the stables, or a redundancy in the field?
If a unit is killed, you'd lose all its equipment, of course.
Edited by Albatross - 05 Apr 2013 at 12:59
|
|
|
|
lethargic0N3
New Poster
Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 35
|
Posted: 05 Apr 2013 at 10:46 |
|
Carry additional sets of equipment for commanders would surely slow them down possibly per set and the logistics involved in carry additional sets for a whole army would slow them to near siege speeds.
Would we also take into account the time it takes to change a full set or armor.. with the possibility that that they are still changing when the attack arrives... and the reduced stats from being half prepared
Edited by lethargic0N3 - 05 Apr 2013 at 10:47
|
|
Tweet
05Apr13 - Updates
