Author Topic: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance  (Read 3457 times)

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #15 on: January 29, 2016, 07:01:02 PM »

You believe? I'm telling you what I KNOW, from actually trying. Attacking Grand Fate Settlements required more then 1k of troops to have a chance to breach the walls. Sure you can win, then pour food into the settlement. But see Hunger is an annoying thing, it lingers after the warning has gone away. You keep trying to do that, without significant pause and you will run into issues. There were RL weeks were Hawks did nothing but recover from hunger related issues, just to ensure when we marched against the next stronghold we didn't starve mid battle. Merica, despite being in the lands of their allies had to run around like crazy to avoid starvation, and I believe mostly failed.


Why rely on speculation when there are people right here who actively test this stuff.

Well, i am actually trying anything i can try in game at all, as it is more interesting way of playing to me than straightforward power development, so most of my proposals are based on some level of reality check.

you may be checking much more, and i respect that, but if you insist on your superior position rather than on arguments, than it's hard to conduct discussion, isn't it?

i hope you will not shout on me angrily when i expose my view again :o .

so, what actually annoyed you the most in the war campaign troubles you described? the issues what you had, conquering some regions, than having to wait and resolve starvation issues is the best direction of gameplay imho. defenders had rl days to organize counterattack on you if they wanted. you had rl days to reinforce your new acquired lands, strengthen and resupply your troop before going into another attack. what is wrong with that at all?

it seems that you are not paying attention to one thing - in game where defenses are tougher, where acquiring important city is much harder, strongholds have much more value. so it's harder for you to conquer something, but it is much more worthy when you succeed.

i won't speculate more, i would be glad to hear exactly what i asked for - what annoyed you the most in scenario you described?

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2016, 11:06:00 PM »
Stongholds take weeks to capture. Weeks of running battles, of feints and misdirections to either out the enemy out of position or weaken them in attrition so an attack on walls will succed. This is from the ruler of one of the most powerful militaries in the game, take it from me I'm not going up against stone walls or wooden castles, let alone to tier defence, without significant prep work, and I have at my disposal perhaps the most active army in the game.

The problem with starvation is as I said. There is little feedback as to the true state if your force. None regarding if you have finally found a safe haven other then watching to see if more men die. The fact is takes time to recover is good. I was pointing out that the game already has these sort of delays since it is obvious you speculate about major conflicts with little or no experience of them. You want things ramped up without an understanding of the ramifications of what already exists. And despite several players trying to point it out and share their experience you claim I'm not offering arguments? How about you provide the evidence from a large war that backs any of your assertions. Otherwise when speculation is meet by experience what is that other then an argument based on related fact.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #17 on: January 30, 2016, 12:27:10 AM »
in all wars i have been in, some of them are from long time ago, i never saw any subtlety in attacking strongholds. all settlements can be reduced to hamlets in quick time by mere sitting around them and starving them, with all buildings that were constructed for many rl months collapsing even before battle began.

in all what i see so far, one side usually rushed into attack only for having too many players who have no time to hang say 72 hours in changing directions and performing similar actiosn that has nothing to do with any real skill, but only with someone's time to hang online indefinitely.

to talk about something like misdirection, one should imagine both opponents having the whole day to observe what other side is doing. and what misdirection has to do with anything meaningful here? if i want to protect settlement which is the most important to me, i will sit there with the whole army and you misdirect as much as you like. the point is, however, that you, by having opportunity to hang in field for too long, can jump around from one target to another until i will not have time to watch your moves any more. if you have larger army, why couldn't i be able to play defensive war, rather than having to chase you around? you might be sharp attacker, i may be good defender, why both of us could not be allowed to play our games? if you are much stronger, you might be able to win many battles, but eventually your troops will fall to hunger, why not? you won say five battles, i won two, and we can continue playing. if you want to destroy me totally, you will have to organize new campaign, attack me again, and it can take months. in the meantime, i can find some good ally and go into counterattack. that is what balancing is, without need for ooc agreement to stop the war that will totally destroy one side in few weeks or so.

even the helicopters fall in vietnamese jungles, afganistan mountains or iraqui desert, but m&f troops could jump around forever until recently. now it's somewhat better, and i personally hope it will be even more of it.

why would you expect that all your soldiers recover from hunger if you held them in field for weeks? even if you won all battles by high advantage, that makes all sense that something causes attrition of your troops when being outside for too long. attrition is concept that hits attackers much more than defenders. napoleon did not go to russia to sit and cause attrition of russian economy, but russian large distances caused attrition of napoleon troops.

that is the way how wars could self-balance and the whole game could self-balance. if you want to win battles at large distance, pay price for it even if your army have superior strength and weaponry, that's all what makes sense. otherwise we don't need cities, buildings, geography, topography, anything, we could just arrange direct battles in empty space.

why would only troops be important in the game? what's the point of all that territory organizing, construction and everything else? what's the point of enormous effort to make myriad of different thins in game if only one thing matters? it takes rl months to build stone wall for instance, and shouldn't it be real badass that cannot be destroyed by mere dancing at the outskirts of the town? you might have superior army, but i invested real much time and efforts in my buildings, and these two values, dynamic and static should be in some balance. noone asks you to give up from your active, dynamic game, but give the other side more chance to compete you, and your own challenge will be higher!

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #18 on: January 30, 2016, 01:07:20 AM »
in all wars i have been in, some of them are from long time ago, i never saw any subtlety in attacking strongholds. all settlements can be reduced to hamlets in quick time by mere sitting around them and starving them, with all buildings that were constructed for many rl months collapsing even before battle began.

in all what i see so far, one side usually rushed into attack only for having too many players who have no time to hang say 72 hours in changing directions and performing similar actiosn that has nothing to do with any real skill, but only with someone's time to hang online indefinitely.

to talk about something like misdirection, one should imagine both opponents having the whole day to observe what other side is doing. and what misdirection has to do with anything meaningful here? if i want to protect settlement which is the most important to me, i will sit there with the whole army and you misdirect as much as you like. the point is, however, that you, by having opportunity to hang in field for too long, can jump around from one target to another until i will not have time to watch your moves any more. if you have larger army, why couldn't i be able to play defensive war, rather than having to chase you around? you might be sharp attacker, i may be good defender, why both of us could not be allowed to play our games? if you are much stronger, you might be able to win many battles, but eventually your troops will fall to hunger, why not? you won say five battles, i won two, and we can continue playing. if you want to destroy me totally, you will have to organize new campaign, attack me again, and it can take months. in the meantime, i can find some good ally and go into counterattack. that is what balancing is, without need for ooc agreement to stop the war that will totally destroy one side in few weeks or so.

even the helicopters fall in vietnamese jungles, afganistan mountains or iraqui desert, but m&f troops could jump around forever until recently. now it's somewhat better, and i personally hope it will be even more of it.

why would you expect that all your soldiers recover from hunger if you held them in field for weeks? even if you won all battles by high advantage, that makes all sense that something causes attrition of your troops when being outside for too long. attrition is concept that hits attackers much more than defenders. napoleon did not go to russia to sit and cause attrition of russian economy, but russian large distances caused attrition of napoleon troops.

that is the way how wars could self-balance and the whole game could self-balance. if you want to win battles at large distance, pay price for it even if your army have superior strength and weaponry, that's all what makes sense. otherwise we don't need cities, buildings, geography, topography, anything, we could just arrange direct battles in empty space.

why would only troops be important in the game? what's the point of all that territory organizing, construction and everything else? what's the point of enormous effort to make myriad of different thins in game if only one thing matters? it takes rl months to build stone wall for instance, and shouldn't it be real badass that cannot be destroyed by mere dancing at the outskirts of the town? you might have superior army, but i invested real much time and efforts in my buildings, and these two values, dynamic and static should be in some balance. noone asks you to give up from your active, dynamic game, but give the other side more chance to compete you, and your own challenge will be higher!

Then you information is irrelevant. There were several bugs with starvation that out settlements at a disadvantage. That was fixed some weeks ago. Without the sort of baggage train described  earlier, or simply massive camp follower retinues, troops in the field starve first.

Misdirection works just as well for the defender. A common tactic is weaken your stronghold and keep just out of spotting distance, so you can rush in the defend once they make an attack. Given the advantages of walls it is devastassist

Beyond that you are misunderstanding. To recover my forces I needed to take settlements as stated before. I then needed to ship in thousands of food and resupply. Had I attempted to fight battle after battle moving from settlement to settlement I would have starved. Indeed that is exaclty what happened to one of our raiding forces, and they were only 200 men strong.

But this highlights what I mean. You keep making claims about the state of the game that simply do not stack up with the experience of those whom have fought wars under the most recent rule sets. For all the strength of Hawks, for all of our acitivity advantage and our experience with misleading our opponents we could not crack the Ascalon strongholds, because Stoned IS a good defensive player and we simply could never draw enough troops away.from the strongholds to attack them, nor take down feeder settlements fast enough to make a difference.

Can you sit in a.stronghold and do nothing else? No that will never work. But you certainly CAN concentrate on important settlements, you can counter attack and retake feeder settlements when those super active characters have moved on and engaged again. Hawks beat Grand Fate not because of our activity, it was actually because we reversed the roles. We spent two weeks executing our plan, keeping Grand Fate focused on other things while we quickly fortified a settlement we had taken. Then we set our trap and when they sought to take our poorly defended Stronghold, when they committed most of their strength we were able to man the walls and destroy them. By having several players watching the watch towers, Grand Fates movement was detected early enough that our less active players had time to move and assist.

The game supports already what you ask for. So without specific complaints based on recent experience I can't see how the system can be tweaked.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2016, 07:36:34 PM »
i can hardly discuss very recent changes that are just noticed in last days, while there was pretty large prior period where some changes were already put in place, but crucial problems stayed.

it's indeed noticeable that troops starve more, while i see some of my settlements losing population very swiftly for troops just passing by briefly.

hope it will be of influence, and will not stay half-finished. imho as long as players wouldn't feel that campaign and movement/supply lines planning will make utter difference compared to free-lance walking around, everything will stay on half of the road. :o




Insanegame27

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Karma: +7/-3
  • I am the Bopmaster, master of Bops.
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #20 on: January 31, 2016, 01:18:49 AM »
Lets just say facts here.
Buildings take ages to build (And so they should, too), especially if they need metal and you are nowhere near any (ie the West) so nobody around has any you can trade for. So they take many many many RL days as the peasants do their eldritch magiks/scavenge old nails etc. for metal. Eventually a building gets built and it benefits you. Maybe it increases resource production, or maybe you can finally train troops.


Then someone with thousands of troops march through your little village, small town if you are really lucky, and it is quickly brought down to a hamlet as the troops pass through, still living off their supply train and your food. As a result of not meeting the population requirement, your buildings start to deteriorate. When a building takes 1% of damage (from deterioration or similar) it no longer gives the building's bonus.


So now your precious town with a mill, fishery, marketplace, etc only has 20 people in it and because they dont get those bonuses the buildings are gone before you can build your people back up. If this happened to me I would probably just kill my char and start a new one on the other side of the map.
Now I have a mental image of horses lined up in a goods factory, building things on an assembly line.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #21 on: January 31, 2016, 02:01:14 AM »
i can hardly discuss very recent changes that are just noticed in last days, while there was pretty large prior period where some changes were already put in place, but crucial problems stayed.

it's indeed noticeable that troops starve more, while i see some of my settlements losing population very swiftly for troops just passing by briefly.

hope it will be of influence, and will not stay half-finished. imho as long as players wouldn't feel that campaign and movement/supply lines planning will make utter difference compared to free-lance walking around, everything will stay on half of the road. :o

The majority of fixes have been in place for months. The most recent went live weeks ago and simply made camp followed essential. Before that with careful management and down in a decent settlement you could manage hunger.

Some settlements stil suffer too much, mountains for example due to their small stockpiles I think. Under the current system you will lose population from large armies in your settlement. If you have buildings that are only JUST above the minimum population requirement, you will likely lose them. I think perhaps a delay would be good here, say you need to be below minimum population for several in game weeks before a building is lost.

But if you have no experience with part if the game in its current state, you need to be much more careful with feedback. How can Tom accurately adjust things if feedback is based on issues from months or more ago? If we are to tweak the current system, the the feedback must be relevant to it.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #22 on: January 31, 2016, 08:43:45 PM »
i still cannot understand whether anything in tweaks you described made any significant effect on problem described with many details here.

if you need much more camp followers, you will just buy them; if you need just some brief awareness that your travels cannot last forever, you will adapt to it, but nothing will significantly change fundamental imbalance among static and dynamic elements.

your buildings, your estates, your construction, topography in overall - all that is simply not worthy if moving troops are so much allowed to be more valuable than anything else.

i even feel that something so simple as brutal increase in soldier starvation, but at the same time significant increase in speed of soldier's training - could change everything: recruitment centers, all infrastructure, strategic positions of strongholds on the map - everything would become much more significant in a moment.

there must be more than one way to allow "nomad game" even in such scenario, but with more costs and more limitations in achievements. anything, just to stop ability of moving troops to make continental travels intact! we invest large amount of time and dedication to our buildings and don't want them to collapse when someone just breaths nearby...

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #23 on: January 31, 2016, 10:56:07 PM »
i still cannot understand whether anything in tweaks you described made any significant effect on problem described with many details here.

if you need much more camp followers, you will just buy them; if you need just some brief awareness that your travels cannot last forever, you will adapt to it, but nothing will significantly change fundamental imbalance among static and dynamic elements.

your buildings, your estates, your construction, topography in overall - all that is simply not worthy if moving troops are so much allowed to be more valuable than anything else.

i even feel that something so simple as brutal increase in soldier starvation, but at the same time significant increase in speed of soldier's training - could change everything: recruitment centers, all infrastructure, strategic positions of strongholds on the map - everything would become much more significant in a moment.

there must be more than one way to allow "nomad game" even in such scenario, but with more costs and more limitations in achievements. anything, just to stop ability of moving troops to make continental travels intact! we invest large amount of time and dedication to our buildings and don't want them to collapse when someone just breaths nearby...


You need camp followers to avoid starving quick. You will still have hunger issues for a major assault, unless you like travelling really slowly with 100+ camp followers, which probably doesn't help anyway, as you will deplete their food while moving like a snail. Don't you think if all I needed was more camp followers we would have done that? Camp followers need food too, need somewhere to resupply from. How easy do you think it is to resupply 100+ camp followers? Now if every Hawk character in the last war carried that many, that is about 1500 camp followers, all who eat 1 food per turn, all who need settlements in good working order to resupply.


I don't know how to get this through to you. Starvation is already brutal. Camp followers allow you to mitigate, if you are constantly able to resupply them. Fresh troops starve relatively slowly, but one you have hit hungry or starvation, you will get there very quickly again once the "warning" is gone. We had players that managed to get to a settlement and stop starving who though they were fixed. When they logged in again after the weekend, all their troops were dead to starvation as that settlement had stopped supply them. I have been testing this over the past few weeks, placing troops in a grassland will not result in the crash of that settlement before the troops starve, given what I consider reasonable camp followers (about 20 per 100 men). Can you purposely crash it still? Yes if you want to ferry in fresh troops, or fresh camp followers.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Tom

  • Head Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6325
  • Karma: +102/-15
    • View Profile
    • Might & Fealty
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #24 on: February 01, 2016, 09:52:49 AM »
Then someone with thousands of troops march through your little village, small town if you are really lucky, and it is quickly brought down to a hamlet as the troops pass through, still living off their supply train and your food. As a result of not meeting the population requirement, your buildings start to deteriorate. When a building takes 1% of damage (from deterioration or similar) it no longer gives the building's bonus.

This I am trying to minimize, but it's really much more difficult then I thought possible. Because I know that as soon as I add something like a "x days of starvation won't result in population decline" code, people will start to cycle their settlements between prosperity and starvation for x-1 days.


Tom

  • Head Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6325
  • Karma: +102/-15
    • View Profile
    • Might & Fealty
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #25 on: February 01, 2016, 10:09:38 AM »
Really, the only thing I see right now is to disable scavenging completely and force mobile armies to rely on looting for supply. But it is almost impossible to survive from looting, so I would have to make looting for food more destructive, taking not only from storage but also from production.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #26 on: February 01, 2016, 11:11:03 AM »
You have options, first make buildings have a delay between population drop and abandonment, then if armies are just travelling through, population might restore before things fall apart. Protect some of a regions food from scavenging, such that x amount is always available for the population/militia. Ensure that stockpiled food is only used for population/militia and not spent trying to fix the shortfall due to scavenging. Diminishing returns on scavenging, such that smaller units are likely to find enough to get by, or at least enough to only partially rely on camp followers, where large units are not going to find nearly enough for their entire army. Actually I quite like that last one, and it makes sense. Foraging groups would only travel x miles from the marching line. While larger armies can send more groups, there is still a finite amount of food in the immediate vicinity.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #27 on: February 17, 2016, 11:19:52 PM »
Well, after some time since this discussion slowed down, I had chance to see more how it looks like when more soldier starvation is applied, and despite the fact that so many of my own soldiers suffer from that every day, I would be free to express my opinion that this improves the game much and will hopefully continue until fully implemented.

It is so apparent over many realms how army commanders still did not get used to new conditions and tend to hang troops somewhere in field for ages, but given enough time, and possibly little more pressure  ;) things will evolve toward much improvement.

what i deem as "much improvement"? i will try to be as straightforward as i can: when wars begin to end by partial victories instead of total fall of defeated opponent; when attackers get tired of taking too much lands, losing too many soldiers at distant lands; when defenders will have enough time to consolidate and render stronger resistance. when 20 battles will be needed to take 3 regions instead of 3 battles to take 20 regions. and so on.

Insanegame27

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Karma: +7/-3
  • I am the Bopmaster, master of Bops.
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #28 on: February 19, 2016, 07:16:26 AM »
I just wish that having so many enemy soldiers on your doorstep didn't break down buildings. It takes ages to build them and reducing a wall to 99% (or something like that) health renders it broken and unusable.
Now I have a mental image of horses lined up in a goods factory, building things on an assembly line.

Tom

  • Head Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6325
  • Karma: +102/-15
    • View Profile
    • Might & Fealty
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2016, 01:38:04 AM »
See the "What If" topic.