| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Larry 
Wordsmith
Joined: 10 Mar 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 114
|
 Posted: 07 Jul 2010 at 19:15 |
|
Tony there's already a built in limiting factor to how far a player will send their army: time. If it takes a week to get where (and thus a week to get back) you're not sitting defenseless for two weeks. Time does this in a far more natural and less arbitrary manner than you speak of. Plus look at it this way. right now you can actually choose your alliance mates. In your plan you would be stuck with whomever you spawned next to. Plus what do the ppl at the middle of your expanding blob do after the blob is bigger than 20 squares?
|
 |
Shrapnel
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 180
|
Posted: 07 Jul 2010 at 16:39 |
To be honest, I just don't like Tony's idea. The reason is because it doesn't seem realistic. Why shouldn't armies be able to travel as far as they can? Armies have traveled vast distances throughout history. Of course, they also had the supplies to do so. They brought food, water, and whatever else they needed. So this gave me an idea. There could be some kind of supply range limit such as food upkeep (the more food you give to the army the longer their range) or we could have a supply train unit. Maybe caravans could acompany armies carrying food. The army has to turn back and go home when the food runs out. The actual implementation I leave to others, but I think this puts a more realistic spin on Tony's suggestion.
|
|
col0005
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 238
|
Posted: 07 Jul 2010 at 14:16 |
|
This idea could also give the game a nice feeling of expanding an empire, and away from the centre of the map would give huge strategic benifit to 'holding' potentially hostile towns even if these are small towns with only a relativley small population as they are all potential gateway.
|
|
col0005
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 238
|
Posted: 07 Jul 2010 at 14:00 |
|
Tony as you have put it I don't believe that your idea could possibly be good for the game. However i suppose once a more detailed area of influence sytem is incorporated there could be a system whereby you can only attack cities within or bordering your area of influence, or your allies area of influence. The inclusion of allies ensures that players will never "win". It also means that new settlments can be used as an outpost allowing an alliance access to new areas of the map and greatly reduces the benifits of clustering. This idea does kind of rely on portals.
Also if this idea was incorperated as well as my "capture and hold" idea it could be made so that if a town is held by an enemy force then allies can no longer attack the surronding area (unless another city enables them to). However the held town can be attacked in order to liberate it.
|
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
|
Posted: 07 Jul 2010 at 11:23 |
|
We have seen the idea, but don't have a strong opinion on it either way.
There are many things about to change in the game and so we need to
consider everything balanced together; especially when a suggestion
involves a *fundamental* change to the way the game operates.
On the whole, we like it when players discuss the pros and cons of a
suggestion, as they often come up with things that we might not have
spotted ourselves. The more comments, opinions and ideas the better.
So yes, we have read this; no, we're not ignoring it; yes, we're
interested in what everyone has to say; no, we're not sold on the idea;
and finally yes, we'll continue to keep tabs on the thread.
Regards,
GM Stormcrow
|
|
Tony
New Poster
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 24
|
Posted: 07 Jul 2010 at 11:08 |
|
Mule it would have the opposite effect to the one you say. Far from boring the established players it would give greater freedom to all by not needing to play quite so defensively. How do you get the game designers attention ? Do they read these things ? It would be good to know that they have at least seen the idea.
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 18:16 |
 Tony wrote:
But have you considered my suggestion. limiting armies to a short range would really shake it up. It would be totally good. |
I did, which lead to my first response--where I basically pointed out that limiting players will only bore the established ones (i.e. about 2 months in) out of the game. The reduction in threat/danger to new players will also only make most of them complacent as well, and the few who remain motivated will still dominate locally (first by outpacing neighbors economically, which goes unnoticed)--and then quit from boredom as further expansion becomes overly difficult yet retaliation from neighbors equally so.
col0005 wrote:
Or perhaps a capture and hold
form of attack which would have a simmilar effect but the attacking army
would remain in the city untill destroyed or told to go home.
|
Involuntary protectorates. HonoredMule approves. In 3rd person, no less. It's a happy middle ground between obliteration/total conquest and pointless skirmishes.
Edited by HonoredMule - 06 Jul 2010 at 18:17
|
|
Tony
New Poster
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 24
|
Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 17:50 |
|
But have you considered my suggestion. limiting armies to a short range would really shake it up. It would be totally good.
|
|
col0005
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 238
|
Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 14:28 |
|
There are supposedly plans to introduce magical portals through which armies may pass (not siege eqipment though) Which will greatly change the effects of war and open up the field of battle for alliances sprawled around the map.
It would be good to have easier, yet temporary ways to make gains though. Such as conquering towns through normal attacks which would prevent that town for attacking your alliance for say 2 months and their income would be taxed at your alliances tax rate which would then be sent to your alliance instead of theirs. (Re-inforcment are allowed by the player and further attacks against the player would cancel this)
Or perhaps a capture and hold form of attack which would have a simmilar effect but the attacking army would remain in the city untill destroyed or told to go home.
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 13:35 |
|
That sounds about right. We've not kept a tally, but thousands die in each clash.
|
|
Tweet
My best suggestion