Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Huntsmaster

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Discuss: Nerfing the Shield
« on: January 09, 2016, 08:32:00 AM »
Shields are the "entry" equipment- lowest requirements and lowest training times to fill the slot. They're also historically widely used. I don't see the point of trying to artificially limit their ubiquitous nature in-game, but if something simply must be done I'd rather see higher loss/breakage.

2
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Change to Mercenaries
« on: November 28, 2015, 03:18:29 AM »
I have no problem with the thought, but I don't want to see the other way disappear, either. Having a shared "pool" of mercs gives you cloak&dagger flexibility, like hiring away mercs that the lord of the border province you're about to attack might hire for the defense.

3
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Idea: Player Complexes
« on: November 28, 2015, 01:42:58 AM »
I would love this.

4
Helpline / Re: Too many militia
« on: November 28, 2015, 01:35:36 AM »
Looks like too many militia crashes settlement economic security at a hard (population dependent) threshold. That's a little disappointing, as it doesn't make much sense for 100 soldiers to be just great, and 101 the embodiment of an oppressive military state. Yes, there are degrees of declining security, but a potential first step from "excellent" to "adequate" is a pretty massive hit.


I've also noted that too many militia only impact food and wealth. Other resources remain unchanged. Is this intended?



5
Realms Chat / Re: World War 1: Hawks vs Grand Fate
« on: November 24, 2015, 10:45:36 PM »
I did not expect to have to side line some of my own vassals after catching them moving troops from their own characters in other realms to bolster their own invasion forces.

Ok, that's frankly shocking. I don't know what to say about that.

Quote
Hawks has no Imperial ambitions, it always has been speculation by players whom can't distinguish between opinion and fact.

Maybe we have different definitions of "imperial ambitions", then. I would say that any moderately paranoid character could easily come to that conclusion.

That is the problem with WELL known issue of which you rely on 2nd hand information and did not actually participate in, they are not really all that well known.

I did participate. On two different sides. I'd expect someone who did to recall that the tithe was to be extracted from Asria, and that Arrakesh joining the fight, absorbing Asria, and eventually paying the tithe was all sort of unexpected and fluid, and was mostly resolved after the arrakesh players started pointing out that it wasn't all that fun to have their brand new realm raped by large numbers of heavy infantry.



Now, I'm not of the opinion that any of this is bad necessarily. I'm just saying that Hawks has absolutely picked up rathgars old reputation as the rampaging horde. Every story needs a villain.

6
Realms Chat / Re: World War 1: Hawks vs Grand Fate
« on: November 24, 2015, 06:38:08 PM »
Hawks is the new rathgar, but with lots of heavy troops and imperial ambitions that are widely known. Moreover, they control what is perceived to be the largest and most active military, and have well-known IG historical issues distinguishing "reasonable" force (to take a recent example, pre-ooc intervention in red isle/arrakesh). Why would you expect that a declaration of war by the top rulers of the strongest realm in the game would *not* be met by an alliance swirl? I honestly thought the point of invading Leyonia was to provoke such a thing.

However, if you want to propose a general change for spotting distances, be my guest and make a good proposal, I just might adopt it.

If anyone can fix this problem of "I just take 2 of my realms and make a fake war" for me, I can do miracles to improve the current system.

To the first point: make random events that mark the map for regional channels, region lords, or both. Coastal provinces have fishermen, who presumably would venture far enough to occasionally spot gathering troop ships. (This also gives you a potential future tie into weather events, more naval combat, etc). Likewise, wooded lands probably have hunters (or poachers) out and about.


To the second point: in my engineering work I make heavy use of the Pareto principle (80% of events come from 20% of causes). In the case of gameable war benefits, you don't need to eliminate many causes to eliminate most of the potential for cheese. Examples: top level rulers from same account? No war benefits. Two sub realms fighting under the same higher level realm? No benefits. (Stuff like this is probably political or "training" anyway and this provides it's own benefit).

Yes, it's still possible to game it (multiple accounts, ooc agreements, etc), but I suspect these would remain far less common.

7
Rage Zone / Re: New vassal betrayal
« on: July 16, 2015, 06:05:34 AM »
Sir ZBIK was one. There will be two others. Sir Slupy.


Those totally sound legit.

8
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Equipment
« on: July 11, 2015, 05:05:52 AM »
I've updated the balance now.


Does this mean that my masses of pikes that I thought were better than spears are now in fact better than spears?

9
Rage Zone / Re: Joining battles inside walls
« on: June 13, 2015, 05:40:16 PM »
When you are inside and attack someone outside, you are placed outside. That's called a sortie. It's in the manual. Maybe that is what happened?


We were definitely both inside. I got a event for the other char leaving the settlement after the battle completed.

10
Rage Zone / Re: Joining battles inside walls
« on: June 12, 2015, 07:44:06 PM »
No, it was definitely inside. One character forced his way into the settlement, and my character entered, hired mercs, and engaged.

Are battles inside towns called "battle of [place]"? I think that's only when the walls are involved, which they shouldn't be in this case. If I'm wrong, then the location of the battle must have changed when you joined, because it definitely began inside the walls.

I also seem to have found a merc bug: having mercs mixed with regular troops appears to remove the ability to manipulate normal soldiers by groups. Other chars on this account are fine, but the merc leader cannot see any group besides the name of the merc band.

11
Rage Zone / Joining battles inside walls
« on: June 12, 2015, 04:11:00 PM »
So this bug is apparently still not fixed?


http://mightandfealty.com/en/queue/battle/7317


was between two of us, inside a wall (manned with militia, even). Troops were 210 v 114. Now it's 4 v 1, with 3 characters coming from outside the walls. Troops now 210 v 490, and 150 of my mercs are about to disappear because 3 chars abusing this bug pushed the battle resolution past the start of the week. Awesome.


12
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Regarding resources and armies
« on: January 29, 2015, 02:31:37 AM »
Wealth is the only resource that they should consume, or maybe a small amount of goods, not sure. But why would a unit of infantry consume wood?

Infantry might not, but archers probably should. Bows and shields wear and need repaired. Chain mail needs broken links replaced. Horses need reshod. I think that there is a lot of room for crude approximations of repair needs as well as the payment (wealth) and resupply (goods) for standing armies.

Equipment loss through wear & tear is something I do plan to implement, but carefully. People do not expect it because other games do not have it. There would have to be some kind of notification, but then with large units you'd basically spam people. And equipment quality should be a factor as well.


If you link "wear & tear" to some kind of raw material supply, then you could have an indicator on the troops page (just like we already have for "hungry", "routed", etc) when they don't have that supply. The micromanager will notice quickly, and the oblivious will notice once wear & tear turns into equipment loss (which can then be resupplied when in a settlement with permissions, or from camp followers when on the move).

A good point. Without some form of logistics and supply this is just one more pain in the arse when someone decided to move 900 men through your region.


I picture moving troops always suffering unrepaired wear and tear that turns into equipment loss eventually. This keeps the (expected) functionality of camp followers as mobile resupply. When quartered in a settlement, I don't think it's unreasonable to tie equipment repair to settlement supply through the Resupply permissions. Lords keep control, and strategic thinkers can somewhat minimize their mobile resupply needs.

13
Conduct & Design Discussion / Regarding resources and armies
« on: January 28, 2015, 07:35:33 AM »



Tom,


If you're looking at a resource rebalance, you might consider adding "supply" requirements for militia.


I don't see any good reason that a herd of heavy cavalry should be stationed in a city, counting as half a peasant and eating only 1 food with no need for resupply. I realize this makes things more complex, but I would really like to see some additions to resource consumption on this end. Something like: horses consume an additional 1 food over their rider, and other equipment requires metal/wood/goods supply at some fraction of the initial resource cost (or has a chance to be "lost"). I think this will help on two counts. First: making wood/metal more attractive to trade. Second: putting additional costs on maintaining large standing armies in peacetime, and increasing that cost relative to the army's capability.




In wartime, people tend to keep their troops moving, which would make this concept more difficult to implement (maybe a logic test- if you have "Enter Settlement" privs in the region you occupy, then your troop pulls from that settlement?) This keeps camp followers viable for foriegn resupply whenever that is implemented, but probably too much complexity for a first pass.


14
Rage Zone / Re: Only participating when threatened?
« on: December 20, 2014, 12:50:43 AM »
Interaction is difficult when there is nothing to talk about, no rumors of war, rulers dying, armies seen moving, alliances formed.


The lack of vision on world events that don't directly affect you can make things challenging. Now try playing in snatches on a mobile phone, and trying to learn about other places and keep up on things becomes exhausting. I've been there for long stretches over the last year.

15
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: These new archers, though
« on: December 20, 2014, 12:02:30 AM »



Post-fix
Jav + longbow vs. medium:
http://mightandfealty.com/en/character/battlereport/4004
Longbow vs medium:
http://mightandfealty.com/en/character/battlereport/4027
Longbow on walls vs archers and horse archers (I was in the settlement but not part of the battle so I don't actually know what this one looks like)
http://mightandfealty.com/en/character/battlereport/4086


I think these were Pre-fix
Jav + longbow (I think?) vs jav+xbow:
http://mightandfealty.com/en/character/battlereport/3742
Jav+longbow vs heavy
http://mightandfealty.com/en/character/battlereport/3895
http://mightandfealty.com/en/character/battlereport/3905
crossbow (??) vs chain cav
http://mightandfealty.com/en/character/battlereport/3831
javs vs chain cav
http://mightandfealty.com/en/character/battlereport/3840


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7