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 - Tan dSerrai

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 38
1
General Discussion / Re: A Not So Quick Question
« on: May 26, 2017, 03:26:44 PM »
I agree in 'less micro and more grand strategy'. Still, there should be a meaningful tactical level where conflict can be resolved - in a fun way. The whole economic system does 'only' produce soldiers and buildings  (which is fine - I really like the 'mostly zero sum economy'), with soldiers being the 'marker of strength' of different entities. These need to be usable in a meaningful way.

Towards that we do not need 'equip single soldiers with different weapons' - we need a system where players may coordinate ideas on how to go about the conflict. It should be enough to set up your character - or your 2-5 characters - with 'units' that (optionally have different characteristics and) can fight, ideally by giving them a chain of orders that play out over 2-3 days with: Go here as fast as you can (risking ambush), wait for the others, deploy in line and advance. Sure, numbers need to matter - but intelligent, coordinated use should allow victory over somewhat superior numbers.

Then, once a conflict has been fought it needs to be translated into a result - and that should not be 'obliteration because its the easiest result'. It should in most cases be 'The looser needs to hand over part of his territory'. If there are other outcomes possible (agree to vassalization, dominance of your cult in my area...), so much the better. Towards territory, I like the occupation/control scheme of EU4 (?): I control 5 of your regions militarily - I withdraw from three and you give me 'ownership' of two. Meaning as long as you only 'control' a region, you gain maybe 10% of its resources - but once you own it you have full control...but ownership needs to be 'given'.

If the 'sub regions' are implemented, so much the better - more possibilities of border skirmishes.  :)

2
General Discussion / Re: Help Wanted: Map Editing Team
« on: May 25, 2017, 08:40:33 PM »
Did read  a part of the tutorials...should be doable, though I admit being an optimist :)
Will await data from you guess it's best arranging the details via discord

3
General Discussion / Re: A Not So Quick Question
« on: May 25, 2017, 10:29:34 AM »
What I'd like to see:

- anything that keeps (or moves the game to) the game playable by investing 10-45min per day: Waypoints, preplanning, less importance for dynamic (on the minute) information.
- anything that makes combat more interesting tactically and especially makes cooperation on the battlefield between players more important
- anything that makes (non-micro) cooperation between players more important in the economic and political parts of the game, 'playing alone' should be possibly but only in small levels/areas
- anything that allows 'limited wars' - for small chunks of territory, raiding, taking and holding outposts...warfare should be (mostly) smaller in scale, not branch out into 'full out war between large realms' which ends in destruction or severe diminishing of one side. It should be possible to fight battles - but winning a battle should not lead to full dominance of one side. It should take time and effort  to translate battlefield control into political control of an area. (Sieges!). And yes, that is a very difficult nut to crack...
- I'd like to see something like a 'dual timeline' - it takes months to build up an army but only one battle to lose it...and that battle only takes a short time and we have little possibilities to interact with it (I want to ride at the side of my liege! I want to be able to betray my side midbattle! I want to haggle with my vassals who are reluctant to invest their heavy infantry! I want to be able to order 'charge now' to my vassals - or to follow the command of my liege to hold the line). Right now we have an 'accelerated' timeline - building industry, weapons and armies is far faster than in RL (who wants to wait 18 years for a recruit to grow up and be trained?) - but that currently compresses battles into the same accelerated timeline (over in 2-3 RL hours). It would be neat if larger battles would take 2-4 days to be fought...and possibly also not on a point of a map but maybe not only be 'inflated in time' in relation to gamespeed but
also 'inflated in territory' - meaning a larger battleline covering 2-3 regions to enable players to maneuver their units on the map.
- anything that simplifies the 'unit mixture' we have/had (no idea what did happen ingame during the past 1,5 years) and make units more distinct and dependent on territory (light cav being a lot faster in plains, light infantry being better in mountains, heavy units 'seeing' less but being better in fighting...all that.

- ok, I found an old post I made quite some time back - it explains the 'longer battles, individual units, terrain importance' somewhat: http://forum.mightandfealty.com/index.php/topic,2812.msg18697.html#msg18697

4
General Discussion / Re: Long time gone...
« on: May 25, 2017, 10:11:50 AM »
Heh. Greetings from the d'Serrai.

I have been reading through the forums every now and then - and yes, its good to see M&F still ticking. I might return some day...and yes, its surprisingly good to see some remnants still there...even though Tan and his father both were killed while sleeping. Lots of history lost  :(

I had a lot of fun playing against, alongside and especially jointly with your characters - salutations from the past!

5
General Discussion / Re: Help Wanted: Map Editing Team
« on: May 25, 2017, 10:08:04 AM »
I would volunteer to help - though be warned, I have no programming skills.

Still, I really like the idea of 'sub-regions' - and as I assume that its a lot of template editing I should be able to wrap my brain around it. Downloading Qgis now, will install and edit this post depending on that outcome....  :)

QGis is installed, I found the tutorial. Before I work through that, any tips on what I should look at in the tutorial? And what is the actual work you are wanting help for? Any templates I could use that you want implemented?

6
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Messaging System Wishlist
« on: May 26, 2015, 04:31:45 PM »
Please a 'sort conversations by latest activity' option - on the 'conversation overview' page.

With my main characters (them having survived surprisingly long) I have a _long_ list of conversations. And yes, I would like to keep 'saving' them...I really like to be able to reread old messages.

However, once a new conversation is started I usually end up having a hard time finding it again 1-2 days later. Especially if it was started by a new/young character whose name I do not remember. Or started by me and I do not remember the subject line.

If I could sort conversations by 'last activity on top' I'd would not end up 'losing' a conversation.....

7
Rage Zone / Re: Corruption not 'dangerous' enough
« on: May 12, 2015, 06:26:55 PM »


I am _very_ much in favor of higher corruption....and am happy to see the game moving towards it.

To make things explainable: the medieval fealty system arose precisely _because_ it was not possible (anymore) to control many settlements. Few people could write, the efficient bureaucracy of roman times (lists, writing, central storage, roads) had effectively vanished....how was one guy supposed to keep track of 50 hamlets? Demanding 20 eggs, 1 pig and 30 bushels of wheat from one hamlet and a different number from another. He could not. So he set up others, each controlling a small area - and only demanded _service_ from these guys, not taxes in detail.

The fealty system was thus both rooted in the warrior culture (largely) supplanting the roman system of governance....and it could be controlled _without anyone needing to be able to write_.

So yes, it is _very_ much explainable if you wish one player/family not to be able to control 100 estates. I honestly think preventing something like this is absolutely necessary...personally I would be in favor of making it quite difficult to control more than 20 estates....for one player controlling 50 estates is very likely able to defeat 5 players controlling 80 estates...and this we do not want. Cooperation should be a strength, not a detriment.

So by all means, I would like to see 20 estates = 9% corruption!

8
General Discussion / Re: Fully Unlocking the Map
« on: May 12, 2015, 06:13:54 PM »
My problem with fighting is that it is more of a chore than fun.

Coordination is relatively hard, single player armies have a considerable advantage. Movement (and in part battle) is relatively rapid in comparison to the time needed to scout, report the results to someone else and to have them react. In addition, I agree with the fact that game mechanics tend to lead towards an all or nothing fight.

I would _love_ to see mechanics easing cooperation (scout markers....), would love to see (more) mechanics actually favoring cooperation between players.

9
General Discussion / Re: Reputation System in Character?
« on: April 03, 2015, 09:13:21 AM »
the +- is obvious. However, the _display_ of the buttons (once pressed) can be misunderstood: If you go back after some time (and do not remember exactly which button you clicked) - did you click the greyed out button or the green one? Since pressing a button does not immediately change anything in the rating it can be somewhat confusing.

To avoid this misunderstanding, maybe give the button you did press a 'pressed down' graphic. Or whatever method to indicate clearly whether you did vote in favor or against a comment.

10
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: 3D Prototype
« on: March 27, 2015, 03:27:30 PM »
New town/city model sent. City wall was reworked. All other models were repositioned to sit at 0/0.

Have fun!

11
General Discussion / Re: Anniversary Survey Results
« on: March 23, 2015, 02:22:19 PM »
Hah!

Thanks a lot for your efforts, Andrew! Impressive!

12
Rage Zone / Re: claiming settlements.. time?
« on: March 20, 2015, 12:54:56 PM »
This is likely due to militia healing:

The time needed to take an estate depends largely on the number of militia present.

If you attack an estate (to gain entry), the militia will be killed and wounded. You start the TO, the time is a few hours. Then, at the next tick some of the wounded militia have healed - and are once again defending the estate against your TO -> TO time rises.

13
Helpline / Re: Want a reason to create Knight Offers
« on: March 20, 2015, 12:27:26 PM »
North - raids:

Enabling and furthering raids and 'limited war' - especially between northern realms/clans/subrealms - is one of the items I am working on. However, reception is lukewarm at best, with threat of 'if you take one settlement from me there will be total war' at worst. I'll keep trying to further warfare...

14
Helpline / Re: Want a reason to create Knight Offers
« on: March 20, 2015, 07:51:26 AM »
Since I think that 'activities for unlanded nobles' are not likely to be coded in the near future - and as keeping unlanded knights occupied with anything of interest is rather hard, I would lean towards trying to gain land for those knights to set up. The bond between players and their land is one of the strongpoints of this game....and I think that there is enough land to be had.

So either war to gain more land or politics: 'My liege, please grant me these estates so that I may strengthen your banners by gaining new vassals!'

...and welcome to the game and the forums, Lann!

15
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: 3D Prototype
« on: March 13, 2015, 03:51:02 PM »
New estates and walls sent as .fbx

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 38