Author Topic: Changes to travelling status  (Read 8784 times)

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3129
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: Changes to travelling status
« Reply #30 on: October 09, 2014, 02:53:36 PM »
what prevents your enemy to gather the whole his army after your biggest center? no matter how much would you delay battle schedule with supporting troops, there is some limit in battle preparation, and your limit on how many support can arrive from nearby regions in time. attacker has no any limitation - he can summon any amount of troops, send to any travel length. how can defenses compete them? i believe they cannot - the only way is to do exactly the same - to organize your attack on enemy territory instead of trying to defend yours.
but there is no defensive war than, and the whole war game is much trivial in my opinion. defensive war in my opinion has to be more or less simpler than offensive war to have subtle strategic warfare. being quite static they are directly linked to your construction efforts that are also slow, almost static. they should not be smashed by some easy and simple way as rallying troops wherever on map is. that is in so large contradiction with long-term construction efforts that really has potential to develop utter frustration.
1


If your opponent gathers all his strength like that there are two problems. First what he takes is likely to death spiral and lose all buildings and defences, hardly a great prize. Secondly he has left his own holdings weak in order to do that, as with all things military sometimes the best defence is a good counter offence. If you are going to let your opponent dictate the war and take the initiative, then yes they are going to get advantages from that. By the way, there is NO limit to how long a battle preparation can take, nor do I believe it is exponential in nature. Against most enemies doing this is a sure way to fail, even 200 troops on a single noble is damn slow, 300 or more is painful. There are a few realms that could pull this off, most of them in the North that have good character counts to distribute their troops well. The only time someone tried this against my main town the watch towers I placed warned us of their approach to the border. Given that my holdings are small I was able to centralise my troops and simply take note of which towers were spotting them. They attacked my main city that by that stage had only 30 troops defending it while I slept. I managed to arrive with the fastest of my forces about an hour before the battle would have commenced, but even had I not they would have gained the walls but probably not have had time for a take over, so always time for round two inside the settlement.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: Changes to travelling status
« Reply #31 on: October 09, 2014, 03:35:11 PM »

If your opponent gathers all his strength like that there are two problems. First what he takes is likely to death spiral and lose all buildings and defences, hardly a great prize.

sufficient to completely smash the opponent who has no any real ability to counteract. what else is needed?

Secondly he has left his own holdings weak in order to do that,

this enhances the other problem: linearity - if your army is double larger than the opponent's, than you would likely take his holding two times of his pace of taking your holdings. and the biggest trouble - he simply has no counter-game. that is the worst aspect. when one-only scenario wins all, stronger alway wins, there is no outmanevoring, application of different strategy - there is no luck component, there is nothing but straightforward progress which cannot be stopped.

as with all things military sometimes the best defence is a good counter offence.

i would be happy if it would be sometimes, but here applies: always.


If you are going to let your opponent dictate the war and take the initiative, then yes they are going to get advantages from that.

the only initiative i see here is diligent zig-zag moving trying to make opponent tired of logging in and tracking your moves :( which is necessary only for opponents of equal strength. much weaker opponent can surrender first day of war and give up everything. that is near to hopeless for interesting gameplay. troops that never tire, can endlessly move and stay in field without any consequences present very unnatural and imbalanced feature, and i do not understand what justifies their existance in such a way.

if you spend month in developing infrastructure and defenses, the opponent would have to make some sensible effort in planning and troop disposition to try to break your holdings. or he could be willing to rash-attack you but pay high price for it. your efforts should have some value which now only applies to efforts in frequent logging in.
By the way, there is NO limit to how long a battle preparation can take, nor do I believe it is exponential in nature. Against most enemies doing this is a sure way to fail, even 200 troops on a single noble is damn slow, 300 or more is painful. There are a few realms that could pull this off, most of them in the North that have good character counts to distribute their troops well. The only time someone tried this against my main town the watch towers I placed warned us of their approach to the border. Given that my holdings are small I was able to centralise my troops and simply take note of which towers were spotting them. They attacked my main city that by that stage had only 30 troops defending it while I slept. I managed to arrive with the fastest of my forces about an hour before the battle would have commenced, but even had I not they would have gained the walls but probably not have had time for a take over, so always time for round two inside the settlement.

thus only enhances my points of troublesome need to frequently log-in - no matter whether your arrival in one hour less or more was decisive or not, it does not make sense that the whole your in-game effort depends on it.

if you spent so much time in building your realm, attacker should at least be force to either attack your outside centers before preparing final attack or be willing to sacrifice most of his army on major attack, sacrify not only troops which will be killed in battle but also those who will die of too long travel and to large troop concentration - for things to be balanced. if there is no balance, linear progression only allows stronger to always win, weaker to always lose, there are no alternatives to be weighted, no unpredictability - no fun for anyone but the strongest and tho most prone to frequent online hanging (under condition that they like such kind of fun). :(



1

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: Changes to travelling status
« Reply #32 on: October 09, 2014, 03:45:05 PM »
just as a comparison to battlemaster:

attacking troops limitation:
- payment
- equipment damage
- morale loss in foreign territory
- and as a last and most extreme consequence starvation, killing each other for equipment, deserting

all that together with travel being limited to one region per turn maximum.

m&f troops has no any of these limitations plus travel as quasi-real time is possibly much faster.

how large a difference! is not m&f predicted to be more complex and more-dimensional game than bm!?

1

PanH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 251
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Changes to travelling status
« Reply #33 on: October 09, 2014, 05:53:23 PM »
Soldiers can loose equipment, so if troops don't resupply, they lose some power.

Concerning other points, I think there's 2 points that need to change :

Consumption of food : either link it to a settlement, or make a new ressource. I'd be in favour of a new ressource, as it allows for more flexibility.

Better combat concerning outnumbering : what I mean is that, outnumbering someone should grant a bonus (already has a morale bonus), but in addition, it has an attack bonus, as all your troops can attack at each phase. If the number of (melee) attacks was dependant on the number of enemies, that bonus wouldn't be so overwhelming.
E.g. If one army has 100 troops and the other 200 troops, the bigger should be able to use only 110% of the enemy forces at each melee phase, so 110 soldiers at phase 1. As it has 'reinforcements', the bigger army would most probably win the battle, but not with the current ratios. As such, someone with a smaller army would be defeated by a bigger army, but it would actually cost something to the bigger army.
The only issue I see with that is that heavy infantry would be boosted, but their maintenance should be increased.


Stonedman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 679
  • Karma: +19/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Changes to travelling status
« Reply #34 on: October 09, 2014, 07:24:21 PM »
Quote
not to mention that i have no any interest in counting and summarizing scoutings and spottings manually. of course, it's just me, but i still don't understand how you deem such activity more interesting than, for instance organizing supply routes to follow your army routes


I don't do that. Don't have the time nor the interest to do it.


If you opponent has a bigger army that you..... well erm, thats kinda your fault. You want the game to prevent anyone with a bigger army than you being able to gather his forces in a single attack? sorry but thats just rather silly.


Quote
attacking troops limitation:[/size]- payment- equipment damage- morale loss in foreign territory- and as a last and most extreme consequence starvation, killing each other for equipment, desertingall that together with travel being limited to one region per turn maximum.m&f troops has no any of these limitations plus travel as quasi-real time is possibly much faster. [/color]



/sigh yes they do.
Travel take a long time, It can take literally a real life week or more to mobilise troops to a destination "not that far away"
Troops loose equipment in battle.


[/size]The other changes, i,e friendly troops killing eachother, haha, silly idea.


[/size]Would i be right in guessing you were on the loosing side of a war recently?
[/size]Because your enemy had more forces?
[/size]Because your enemy was better co-ordinated?
[/size]Never mind.

[/size]In regards to troops eating enemy food, that will always be there. It's called foraging / living off the land.
[/size]But, they SHOULD need to have certain ammounts provided from their home territory. [/size][/font][/color]

Stonedman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 679
  • Karma: +19/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Changes to travelling status
« Reply #35 on: October 09, 2014, 07:29:46 PM »
aah now i know who stueblahblahblah is by reading a bit more haha, sorry but it's rather funny that the big bad guy declares war on the smaller guy, then complains when the smaller guy is winning :p




One thing i will also concede here.
It seems that the mechanic of troops suffering starvation the same as local population is not currently working?
I'm sure it used to. And it had an effect. so maybe it should be turned back on.


But really.... stop complaining about this just because you got beat up.


stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: Changes to travelling status
« Reply #36 on: October 09, 2014, 08:00:55 PM »
i feel something different silly - situation where the only way of playing is very trivial gathering of all forces into one spot and than crushing the opponent region by region while the opponent has nothing to do at all - if you merely manage to gather more troops in that one spot and therefore win one battle.

it is silly that big war ends after one battle and number of realms dissipate after that one battle only because they have no any way of counterplaying. after one single battle which again consisted of mere gathering troops to one spot... even worse those who moved their slave-clon-characters had large advantage over those who had to coordinate number of real men... instead of vice-verse, which could be expected in cleverer war.

implication that i'm complaining because i am on losing side of war is really degrading the whole this conversation. if you took time to investigate irrelevant issue on who i am, you could find out that i have characters on many different places, some win some lose but in number of threads I presented why things are bad this way in general.

i never ever said that those who are bigger must lose to those who are smaller. i only said and repeated that awkward, anti-natural and flavorless moving enormous number of troops to any dot over the continent map should be possible, but with adequate price,  should not be easy, straightforward and costless, and that months of efforts of "smaller" players should not be erased in few hours only because game is imbalanced, as allowing attacking troops to go out and do whatever they want cost-free while everything else in game is burdened with heavy cost/time penalties is simply an imbalance.


1

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: Changes to travelling status
« Reply #37 on: October 09, 2014, 08:10:51 PM »
.. and tell me, with danger for me that admin will warn me for digression - when we are discussing so deeply already - what fun you actually find with 1200 soldiers attacking my region defended with 10 soldiers?

what particular joy, interest you find in that? thanks to anti-bully claim system i managed to retake region again, but what are you achieving by holding so many soldiers third rl day already in so small and unimportant region? just enjoy to being able to what you want with cost-free soldiers hanging? want to crush me definitely so i never come back? want to starve region to hamlet just for fun? i'm simply curious what fun you find in that...

 i can stay there until being killed or imprisoned, whatever, that is my weakest and the least important character, but what annoys me it that i cannot find any meaningful in-game story that could explain such events and allow me to play/roleplay around it as it is simply awkward. if you would lose say at least 150-200 soldiers to starvation for such fancy behavior, you would at least weight when and why to do such things...

1

Stonedman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 679
  • Karma: +19/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Changes to travelling status
« Reply #38 on: October 09, 2014, 09:34:07 PM »
What did your MASSIVE realm gain in "fun" from attacking our smaller one?


I gained nothing in "fun" (well actually the war has been quite entertaining so far)
This war was imposed upon us.
I have lost many settlements (about 8+ i think).
I have lost over 700 troops.
One of my heartlands has been starved from 800 population, down to 2.
Many other settlements have been starved to around half their previous populations.
One of my heartlands was conquered (against the laws of the North) by the aggressor faction.


What in-game role play is there...... you realm declared war, we are fighting back.
The only reason we have stayed in the region, was on-going peace negotiations with the local Clans, otherwise we would have moved on and continued the attacks.


You say we are 1 person co-ordinating, thats incorrect, we are a group of players (probably about 6-8 i think) co-ordinating against a much larger aggressor force.


It took well over a real week to co-ordinate our forces. probably more like 8-9 days, this doesn't happen instantly.


I have proposed some solutions, but your absolute fixation on the fact we have gathered troops into a couple of mobile armies is largely irrelevant, as if we had them scattered around more, they would still be starving settlements, but a there would be more of them starving but a little slower.


We have actually taken care not to stay in one place "too long" so as not to completely destroy the settlements in the conflict zone.

Gustav Kuriga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
  • Karma: +22/-34
    • View Profile
Re: Changes to travelling status
« Reply #39 on: October 10, 2014, 09:31:20 AM »
What did your MASSIVE realm gain in "fun" from attacking our smaller one?


I gained nothing in "fun" (well actually the war has been quite entertaining so far)
This war was imposed upon us.
I have lost many settlements (about 8+ i think).
I have lost over 700 troops.
One of my heartlands has been starved from 800 population, down to 2.
Many other settlements have been starved to around half their previous populations.
One of my heartlands was conquered (against the laws of the North) by the aggressor faction.


What in-game role play is there...... you realm declared war, we are fighting back.
The only reason we have stayed in the region, was on-going peace negotiations with the local Clans, otherwise we would have moved on and continued the attacks.


You say we are 1 person co-ordinating, thats incorrect, we are a group of players (probably about 6-8 i think) co-ordinating against a much larger aggressor force.


It took well over a real week to co-ordinate our forces. probably more like 8-9 days, this doesn't happen instantly.


I have proposed some solutions, but your absolute fixation on the fact we have gathered troops into a couple of mobile armies is largely irrelevant, as if we had them scattered around more, they would still be starving settlements, but a there would be more of them starving but a little slower.


We have actually taken care not to stay in one place "too long" so as not to completely destroy the settlements in the conflict zone.

Wrong, he's complaining about a war in the isles, unless he has multiple realms. Anyways, I've taken to ignoring him entirely.



On a separate, and slightly funny note. De-Legro, I'm sure you meant to say something else when you said southern time zone... since time zones are separated east and west, not north and south....

Calpurnius

  • Guest
Re: Changes to travelling status
« Reply #40 on: October 10, 2014, 01:00:25 PM »
I find it interesting that one person is being beaten by the same method in two different locations, and the response from the larger forces is, everything is working okay.

The problem with food consumption only affecting the village population, and not the invading army has been here since the start. The inability to detect large forces camped or traveling has been mention several times also.  Most people are still waiting for terrain to play some sort of role for defensive purposes.

I am upset that months of tedious work to maintain balance in relation to recruitment, population, construction, and trade, is wiped out by having the population in towns dropped to nothing , without a battle ever taking place.



Stonedman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 679
  • Karma: +19/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Changes to travelling status
« Reply #41 on: October 10, 2014, 02:33:59 PM »
Quote
I am upset that months of tedious work to maintain balance in relation to recruitment, population, construction, and trade, is wiped out by having the population in towns dropped to nothing , without a battle ever taking place.

I think that we can all relate to that sentiment, but the solution is not complaining about people "cheating" or "abusing" by gathering large armies to fight big wars as stue had been doing.
Which I say again, is why I support the notion that military forces should always draw a good proportion of their food from their home town (or the last friendly (i.e same realm) settlement they were assigned as garrison), to simulate the supply lines needed to maintain a war, this should happen automatically with no user input required.
but we should NOT have to manually set up and create those supply routes, and maintain them by assigning nobles to certain tasks, that is far to "involved" and will IMHO greatly discourage people from waging war.
And I believe that troops should suffer from starvation in regions they are in, to dissuade them from staying in a single position for too long. troops which are starving could suffer eg a 20% combat penalty, or have a very low mortaility rate, but again the losing a quarter or a third of your forces just because they are moving on campaign as requested by stue is a totally ridiculous suggestion, and will kill the prospect of warfare in the game.
Settlements should also have a "warehouse" type mode where they can build up supplies of food.
currently if you have more than a couple of surplus food, it all goes into growth.
Perhaps we need an option for surplus food to be used in their growth, or in building reserves to fight sieges.

Vinicius

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Changes to travelling status
« Reply #42 on: October 10, 2014, 02:44:52 PM »
For the conflict I'm following, I think, it's coming down to coordination: one side managed to gather more players and coordinate better than the other, and is winning. On the other hand, Stonedman implying that he was on the weaker side is not really something I could agree to (could be it at the beginning, but not now) as he brought (direct or indirectly) a large chunk of the south to the battle on his side.


Yes, being outnumbered is fatal, and yes, there are very few strategical options (at least is what I've found this far). So I partly agree that the battles and tactics are pretty straightforward at the moment, and the one "variation" I've seen this far is being called a cheat, or non-chivalrous.

Cynic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +16/-8
    • View Profile
Re: Changes to travelling status
« Reply #43 on: October 10, 2014, 03:16:00 PM »
I am upset that months of tedious work to maintain balance in relation to recruitment, population, construction, and trade, is wiped out by having the population in towns dropped to nothing , without a battle ever taking place.

I know the feeling.

However I would like to add - This is only as much of a problem as we make of it. Food production is high, very high, and there's always the temptation to use it. If you're balancing settlements around filling them with buildings, exporting all of the extra food and leaving a surplus of 10 over the absolute most you could take out, the settlement is going to suffer shortly after people arrive.

If you leave 100 of the spare food in there (most grass/forest settlements can handle around 200 food in total, I've seen as much as 400 n a couple of settlements, between buildings, trade, soldiers and militia at 50%) then the settlement will grow to around twice the size that it would be if you have it 'balanced' and when the soldiers start to starve the settlement there's a much bigger cushion before buildings and so on need to be abandoned, more enemy soldiers required to hit the starvation threshold and far more scope to assist with all the spare food the neighbouring settlements have that you can easily import.

So yes, if you balance settlements in order to optimise production, you will suffer when war comes. If you leave a much bigger cushion then you can ride it out far more easily, but you will obviously have a smaller army.

Settlements being starved by invaders is a choice we've made. Maybe it was the right choice strategically, but that was the risk we chose to take by running settlements so aggressively, and it can be avoided by accepting being less powerful or influential.

As an addendum - The soldiers-less-affected-by-starvation thing is, I believe, a change that was made moderately recently. Before that, if I remember correctly, soldiers starved much more easily when the region they were in was starving, but people complained. I hope in the future that alternative supply methods (camp followers, lines of supply, whatever) allow armies to compensate for starvation in another way and they can be restored back to normal starvation vulnerability. That would take away much of the tactical advantage of just walking around and would require resource expenditure to do so.

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: Changes to travelling status
« Reply #44 on: October 10, 2014, 03:29:41 PM »

I think that we can all relate to that sentiment, but the solution is not complaining about people "cheating" or "abusing" by gathering large armies to fight big wars as stue had been doing.

on your side i see some tendency to degrade tone of conversation, which kills discussion quality, without any justification. i clearly complained about feature, not people, and just used some real events to back my thought. please where did you find in my letters and mention of cheating and abusing? please don't put me words in mouth. even my last question to you was only posted in order to share thoughts. after your response it's visible that you yourself also feel things about this in-game feature lacking, so would it not be better to find common thought instead of being glum. :P

Which I say again, is why I support the notion that military forces should always draw a good proportion of their food from their home town (or the last friendly (i.e same realm) settlement they were assigned as garrison), to simulate the supply lines needed to maintain a war, this should happen automatically with no user input required.
but we should NOT have to manually set up and create those supply routes, and maintain them by assigning nobles to certain tasks, that is far to "involved" and will IMHO greatly discourage people from waging war.

as mentioned in previous letters, i believe it is not crucial how many buttons needs to be pressed - developers will almost certainly work with players to find user-friendly structure, it is mostly issue on such thing existing at all to ensure proper balance.

And I believe that troops should suffer from starvation in regions they are in, to dissuade them from staying in a single position for too long. troops which are starving could suffer eg a 20% combat penalty, or have a very low mortaility rate, but again the losing a quarter or a third of your forces just because they are moving on campaign as requested by stue is a totally ridiculous suggestion, and will kill the prospect of warfare in the game.

again it is oversimplifying my proposal though i spent lot of words trying to present them (which can be partly addressed to my lacking English as well) - i was always talking about adequate price dependant on type of action - if you stay in field for say 7-10-whatever days, maybe you should face certain sensible penatly, but if you stay 20 days in field doing nothing, than penalties should be larger, and the other influencing factor should be number of troops - the more troops the quicker troubles.
if you want to make final, decisive victory against stronghold of your tuffest opponent, you will likely disregard penalty, and bring all troops you have to breach the walls of say some fortress, but than, yes, in such extreme case, you should have higher penalty, maybe even 20-30% of troops.
this is not ridiculous in my opinion, this would just push players to find best size of their army for particular battle - if they want to breach through 200 militament, they may bring 600 men, but not 3000 men, or they will pick their the most elite troops who have highest strenght.
i believe such penalty is necessary as if it does not exist, players will always tend to bring largest possible army to any battle not because that is cheating but because it's pragmatical, but at the same time it's both unrealistic and anti-flavored in my opinion. you can still bring 3000 against 200, but you simply have to pay higher price. all that is for purpose of balancing.


11