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 - silvershot

Pages: [1] 2 3
General Discussion / Re: Discussion - Subscription Levels
« on: October 12, 2017, 12:15:51 AM »
Possibly, although XCOM: Enemy Unknown was also released in 2012 and Tom cited that as the direct inspiration for the way soldiers are handled in Might & Fealty (each being a named individual, and such).

Perhaps this?

General Discussion / Re: Things to Do
« on: August 09, 2017, 12:52:01 AM »
I like the sound of that. As I said, it should be relatively short-ranged, no more than 3-4 provinces (in my opinion, though the exact range would probably change based on in-game experience) to avoid both full centralization, and so that troops aren't being sent halfway across the map.

I disagree, but only because I think you could simply make it expensive and time consuming. I think that trying to funnel larger groups of troops longer distances would just, naturally, take a lot longer. You would probably also have to be concerned with ensuring they are fed. If they're not fed, they'd have to forage and take even longer.

Groups light infantry, archers and/or cavalry would probably be able to travel pretty quickly.

Groups of Medium Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Armored archers and heavy cavalry would probably travel a lot more slowly.

It's easy to keep small groups in order. Much harder to keep larger groups in order.

Funneling soldiers this way could cost money, and food (if you want to ensure you avoid starvation and let them travel faster).

And if you move too far away from their destination? It will take a bit longer to reorganize their march towards you, or they could just keep marching to the wrong place (so you'd have to intercept them some how, or sacrifice scouts, etc, to keep them coming to your location)

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: travel dates and battle timers
« on: August 08, 2017, 07:43:04 PM »
The core is PHP, right? I don't know much PHP, but I could look into it and see if there's any easy to implement solutions.

Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: travel dates and battle timers
« on: August 08, 2017, 04:03:20 PM »
Another browser game I play off and on has special markup for converting to whatever local time a user sees.

If you use t1000 or 10:00 (24h clock) where the numbers represent a time in your own time zone, it gets converted to server time and then when displayed to other players, converted to their timezones.

General Discussion / Re: Things to Do
« on: August 02, 2017, 01:43:22 AM »
In my opinion the game needs NPC events that provide the setting for player interaction. Things like bandits that require people to co-operate to firstly secure a region against their attacks, and then scout out their hideout for example. The original design took sandbox to mean only player generated content. I don't think that is feasible for a web game that isn't supposed to dominate your life.

Yes, I agree absolutely.

General Discussion / Re: Things to Do
« on: August 01, 2017, 09:45:34 PM »
So what, you all fight without a battle plan or objectives? Just throwing armies after armies on someone and expect them to roll over and die? If you do things this way, no amount of activity will ever decide a war. I suppose having a tool that makes a proper battleplan would be a decent addition to combat the activity issues.

Also, the example I gave is not the only one. This happened plenty of times. The only person who needs to be online 24/7 is the 'catcher'. The rest just check in once in a while, and make sure they are going the right direction. I am sure De-Legro, who has had a lot more fights than me can write two pages worth of examples where low activity players do just fine. Of course, we've all had inactivity mishaps. Sometimes it happens, but that's merely an error in strategy, nothing else.

No, but when you have to invade an area and take a bunch of different estates, it's a bit safer to stay together, don't you think? There's a battleplan, but they have to adapt to changing circumstances. I don't haphazardly throw care into the winds and say that we're going to A then B then C then D, only to have issues at B or C that stops us, while other people would continue on and make it 100x worse.

Or you are just targeting A and B, but something significant happens along the way. It's nice it works for you. It really doesn't work for every scenario.

General Discussion / Re: Things to Do
« on: August 01, 2017, 09:02:42 PM »
I don't see what's so hard about clicking 'military aid' entering a name, and setting a direction to go in. It's not rocket science. When we took Slumberstone one guy literally did this, and was away from the game two weeks. When he came back, he had joined the battle, and read the battle report and was like 'Ok I am going back home now'.

It's nice it worked out that way for you, but to me it hardly seems like a normal case.

Orders can change, and realistically there's usually about a day of a grace period before things can go wrong if no one follows. But it could easily be less than that.

General Discussion / Re: Things to Do
« on: August 01, 2017, 08:43:15 PM »
It does not.  In M&F you have to babysit the game all the time. Until maneuvres are over and the battle has started. You lose major battles because one person logged in an hour too late and didn't make it exactly in time.
In B&M you just need to log once every 12 hours. That's it. Your realm can actually be successful in warfare if you can at least do that.

Yes, and even then it still fails. I don't know how many times my character and the ruler of our realm have been injured because we're the only two to move right away (e.g. getting on once during that turn after orders had been given). But even in BM, if you get on before let's say 2 hours after a turn change, and the Marshal is usually 3 hours after turn change.... Then you lose those people fairly often.

In M&F, there's about a three hour leeway time for many of the battles where one estate over, on easy terrain, has a chance of reinforcing you.

Perhaps a limited duration follow mechanic might work? The player would have to enable it for their character, and it would only work for a limited time, probably quite a bit more limited than "Military Aid" is. Something designed to assist activity, but not replace it.

General Discussion / Re: Things to Do
« on: August 01, 2017, 04:58:11 PM »
I know Tom was against NPC mechanics as a general rule, but...

Minor disaster events, roaming NPC bandits that aren't as terrifying as the real thing for a new knight, tournaments... Even minor beneficial events, like resource stockpiles. I don't know... Peasant riots in unhappy areas. Actual supply lines to be raided or defended.

I especially think the Knight game needs more work. My characters reasonably want power, but as a player I want other players to enjoy the game as well. There's not a ton to do as a knight without estate, and unless someone's really into roleplaying, they may only be fun if you have other characters who own estate and can support them.

Land to colonize, explore, and fight over might be neat. Tenuous holdings that would not be easy to keep one way or another... But that, I am sure, would be difficult to implement in a manner which would be fair long term. This could be one area where you have to worry about NPC army incursions, but then I suspect someone would just find a way to farm experience from them, or that one realm would just gain control and gain even more power.

Trying to create an environment more conducive to intra-sovereign realm conflict would be worthwhile, too, but I really don't know how to do that. With Greater Ryne and Gwent and all going on, I sometimes feel like the wrong people are out to get punished. People obeying their liege are just sticking to their oaths of fealty. A better environment for this sort of thing could see larger realms break into smaller realms long term, unless the ruling parties have a very good grasp of what their feudal chain desires.

General Discussion / Re: The Value of Experienced Soldiers
« on: August 01, 2017, 04:47:43 PM »
I am still fond of increasing survivability in roundabout ways.

I just had a relatively close -- though I was still outnumbered -- battle where my primary character's soldiers all had 40+ experience. My noble was wounded. My men fought to the last, so I was left with 15 or so heavily wounded soldiers left.

Figuring out a way to have them instead retreat in an organized manner would increase their value, because they might sustain lighter injuries during the retreat phase OR at the very least inflict casualties to the enemies as they try to break ranks and pursue.

Additionally, if some sort of basic unit settings could be added -- for example, choosing to allow the enemy quarter. During the retreat phase, inexperienced soldiers might pursue them anyway but experienced soldiers would instead hold their ground.

In most cases, experienced soldiers would be disciplined and obey orders. Inexperienced soldiers might be impetuous. Impetuous levies basically lost Harold Godwinson the Battle of Hastings, when they pursued the enemy after they managed to break a flank! William's well trained and disciplined, as tired and broken as they were, reformed, and in turn eradicated the pursuing forces. Harold lost the flank, and he did not have enough of his more elite housecarls to defend. He was generally considered to be outnumbered, but almost won until those events.

In the same vein as additional soldier settings, experienced soldiers might have more options available than less experienced soldiers. This would also make allowing advanced training posts and decaying experience (unless earned in battle) viable.

Experienced soldiers could lose or break equipment less.
If weapon bonuses vs armor or on terrain, etc, eventually exist, experienced soldiers could get minor boosts to this bonus. Same if formations are added.

If ranges are factored into the battle system eventually, experienced archers might have a longer effective range.

And as a closing note, on my thoughts about an organized retreat and my opening statement:
Lost battles almost always seem to result in the losing party losing nearly all to all of their soldiers; trying to kill/wound them to a man should carry a risk, and having experienced soldiers somehow subvert this risk could be huge! I am not saying the winning party should not have a significant advantage after a victory, mind you; they generally should. Though a smaller force that managed to beat a larger force might not end up with any manpower advantage.

General Discussion / Re: Soldier Experience
« on: July 31, 2017, 03:22:30 PM »
Is this instead of the existing evade mechanic?

Perhaps in addition to. It may not offer enough to be worth development time, but even a successful disengagement or evasion might carry some risk. They could, for example, send skirmishing forces to try to force you into battle, or at least slow you down. I don't know, though. I definitely think a perfect disengagement/evasion would be difficult if the enemy is already hunting you.

Perhaps it would be easier for a noble and a few guards to escape -- leaving behind his men to fend for themselves and perhaps branding him as a coward.

General Discussion / Re: Soldier Experience
« on: July 30, 2017, 08:48:10 AM »
Yes, I want to revisit the fact that once you are in a battle you can't force others in. I think it makes sense that you can choose to also attack new forces in the area. I also think that join battle needs to be more sophisticated, so that you can choose your side and forces others into battle on the other side. Not necessary though if the first change is made since you could join then initialise battle.


And if it's feasible, it might also be worthwhile to afford players the ability to try (a chance) to avoid being drawn into the battle, perhaps if they have the evasion option enabled. Obviously not guaranteed, but if they are trying to avoid you, they should still be able to try, but with risk of course.

Honestly, evasion might be worthwhile as having other risks associated... Skirmishes of scout parties/vanguards or whatever. But that's an entire new mechanic. I understand that might be far too complex to even be considered. The risks could effect both parties, though.  As an example of consequences of evading, there could be a risk of losing carried supplies (perhaps some recovered by the attacker?), lost equipment or risk of minor casualties for both sides.

General Discussion / Re: Soldier Experience
« on: July 30, 2017, 01:52:42 AM »
They can always pick a side and join if that is.what they wish though, and it eliminates whining about mistakes any algorithm makes.

That's something else entirely different.

If an enemy wants to try to avoid a battle, and they pass nearby, and I can't engage them in a new battle or draw them into the other battle, then they just get a free pass. If they want to avoid it by going a longer way around, that's something else entirely.

300 yards away? The battle line could theoretically expand that far, and so could a camp during planning. A longbow has a useful range of approximately 200 yards, killing range even higher than that; they better be running or sprinting their forces away from and past me if they don't want to get picked at.

Late crossbows could reach well over 300 yards; early crossbows could kill as far as 300 or so yards with training and a little luck but granted were probably far more lethal and useful on a flat plain at 50-70 yards.

Though I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere.

General Discussion / Re: Soldier Experience
« on: July 28, 2017, 10:35:14 PM »
No the solution is easy, you don't allow new battles to be created with X yards of an existing one. Then you.don't need logic to combine battles that are close.

Thought about that after I posted too. But I guess I was thinking that you might still want to try to draw people into the battle.

General Discussion / Re: Soldier Experience
« on: July 28, 2017, 02:54:49 PM »
And if you are doing in enmass to prevent people from joining a pitched battle some 300 yards away? Yes there are times that it would make sense. Given current mechanics there are plenty of times where it won't. 100 men can tie down 400 or more for 7 hours, regardless of the terrian or other factors.

The best way they could do that is if it were 100 well equipped and skilled soldiers, probably cavalry, versus a messy rabble. But that would probably be over in far less time than 7 hours, anyway.

Edit: It'd be nice if there was an easy way to combine nearby battles, but sometimes not even realm is appropriate.

Pages: [1] 2 3