Now you've got an interesting idea Req! I think that solves a number of our problems while keeping the game dynamic (with the ability, if you've saved, to deploy a large number of troops). I think this also keeps basic troops in the game much longer (which, again, is good for diversity). Particularly with the buffs to early game economy and tech costs, expert and master level troops have been taking over games very quickly. It would be nice to see them as late game enhancements to ones army, rather than staples, and I think a significant build time will do just that; I've always been a bit weary of the 2-3 unit late game armies...too simplifying. And, as long as some provisions are taken to make higher end units (like scouts) cost more and train longer than lower end ones (like spears and militia) we can balance the early game much better than we have now.

Or...and I'm thinking back to the strategy thread on spears here...what if we changed the numbers around so that each stack is roughly equal in power (and had the same training time). In other words, a full stack of spears is 15 units, swords 13, scouts 10 (or something like that). This way we can keep the training times between similar units the same, but still give "lower" troops a significant boost.

The reason I suggest something like this is because, as I point out in that thread, a 10 pop scout can take out a 10 pop spear and still have 5 units left (all other factors removed, of course). The unit cap inherently favors the scouts because (even if you have more stacks) players have problems bringing more spears to the battle than their opponent has scouts (since the scouts are more nimble, it is usually them attacking with the army # advantage, never mind the numerous choke points that can be utilized to cut an army # advantage down). This game feature is a very large part of the reason spears are worthless, because game mechanics prevent them from gaining any real advantage on scouts (which is their whole point for existing in the first place).

Something to think about; I think it's more realistic anyway, as you wouldn't expect to have as many cavalry as you do infantry or have cavalry always overwhelm any other basic unit army; they should be just like any other troop, good in some situations, bad in others (not wtf pownage in all ). Perhaps the era of "super unit" armies can finally come to an end!

If you can not handle this, you can not handle much. This is a very simple barracks build mechanism compared to other games. The idea of a barracks building and waiting turns does not seem good. And unlimited barracks will give a great advantage to the veterans over new players. And suddenly calstes will be overflowing and you have to put barracks outside the castle. Unless you can 'level up' a barracks. Not worth the effort to program , or to play with that change I fear.

personal , it doesnt sound too bad

except everyone is all worried about getting rid of the 1 pop blocker strategy ,

the main thing i see this new syatem will do is make taking over some one else about four time faster and easier , which will take all the fun out of defending,

all you do is sweep in take out their resource and the wont beable to afford full stacks anymore, since you cant buy smaller then full stacks, you now lose with no chance to defend at all.

i defend my castles alot with stacks between 2 and 6 becasue they are ready every other turn and i can afford them with the resource i get from the market tribute techs.
with this system. to afford a full stack would take 5+ turns i would have holes in my walls and be dead by then.

next. the one pop defense may be agrvating to attack against but in a clan game with three opossing clan members attcking you, you need smaller pops to be able to split your defense to cover all sides of your castle at all times. with 10 pop units i would not have held out for 70+ turns

but if we want to make game easier , i will still play as long as its equal for every one

I think we moved past that idea corflu; the focus is now on a "training points" system, which seems far more practical. As for unlimited barracks, I think that's probably a bad direction to go as well, but that's a balance detail that can be addressed later. The real question is how is the new system going to look.

I have to disagree with you Dinoz; if anything it buffs up defense. With the recent buffs to starting economy and resource gain, you'll never not have enough gold to train full stacks of basic level troops (unless you're really incompetent ). Having a 10 pop come out every other turn turn is as good as you can do with three barracks right now, which means you can reinforce faster than your enemy can bring troops to the battle (unless they build outside your base). That has always been a defensive advantage and the new system wouldn't change that. Let me say that, if it's to the point your defending your castle primarily with stacks of 2-6 and you let your opponent take out your resources you're already in quite a bit of trouble, new system or old .

You're also assuming we'll have fewer armies in the new system, which is somewhat true, but the armies we will have will all be full strength, which compensates (and, troop per troop, you'll be able to train far more units than you can now). The tactic you mention, of slowing enemies with lots of small pops, is exactly the kind of tactic Req wants to do away with. In reality it doesn't make sense that 10 hc must waste all their power on 1 spearmen anyway. Nor does it make sense that cavalry have the same pop limit as spears; for the first time, in this new system, we have the potential to balance the opening troops so that scouts aren't completely dominant (by giving the lower end troops a higher starting pop).

Since I just read the "castle" revamp thread. It seems logical, perhaps, to have primary training at the castle and perhaps secondary (less powerful) buildings for "field recruiting." That way we don't have to worry as much about unlimited barracks, but still have some flexibility.

I'll also add that, since the points system has been bought up, I really think that's a better way to go than only one unit at a time. In reality you should be able to pump out several militia in a turn (if you've saved for it), which gives you some flexibility. Otherwise, what's the point in saving your points if you only want to train basic troops? If you still want to use a one hex building for unit training, perhaps we could start units with movement points so that they can make room for another unit to train?

Baron, you can focus on a new system all you want. But the reality is that these cahnges are making it less playable and desireable, not more. I'll stick to my comments above.

I dont understand how this makes it less playable or desirable.

It makes it more playable. Simpler mechanic, more difficult choices. Thats the basis of any good strategy game.

I will agree with the idea that this game has always been quite easy to learn how to play and I don't see that as a valid argument not to play it, but I also agree that the new ideas presented here would tend to make it even more easy to learn to play;

and I do look forward to unlimited barracks to possibly enhance troop production which I have always felt was stuck in low gear and yes, causing a questionable slowness of the game.

PS:
In beginner games, if it is possible, a series of screen prompts might help new players like:
a) build your blacksmith shop to allow new technologies to be displayed
b) when in game click on the links on the left of the screen to make changes
c) don't forget to research a new technology to get more gold and resources and to enhance troop production

Again the game is fairly easy to learn, but if new players are not willing to take their beginner lumps learning the best technologies to research first for example, I think it may be because there is no longer enough to do in the game as when I first started.

Yes it takes a lot of patience to play a game that only allows activity 8, 12 or 24 hours apart and maybe I wouldn't have learned it so quickly either were it that way when I started even though now I prefer to get my five to eight hours sleep and I'm not trying to promote the way it was.

rex

I'm not sure whether people are arguing against these changes specifically, or just changes in general. If you want to argue against these, that's one thing, but I don't think anyone can sit here and say WOL is up to snuff the way it is. It may be good, we may even like it, but that doesn't mean it's refined enough to be considered a final product. There are balance issues, scores of outdated information and half-realized concepts. That doesn't mean it's not fun to play, and realistically there will always be complaints about any changes, but if your position is no change at all is best than you might as well be petitioning Req to take the game out of beta. This is a work in progress, so shooting down ideas without offering new ones really doesn't get us anywhere. (this isn't directed at anyone, just a general comment)

With less than 200 active players I don't think we should be content to rest on our laurels, or contend things are fine the way they are. That doesn't mean we change for the sake of change, or go about it irresponsibly, it means (in my opinion) we should be focusing on where we can improve (not defending what we already have).

Req's point is that the game is complex and deep, but in terms of its mechanics more than its strategy. I have plenty of little tricks for manipulating the system to my advantage (1 pops for taking away retal is only a very basic example); this is a form of strategy, but one which new players are completely alien to (until they get the mechanics down). Before you argue the specifics of his plan, look at what he's trying to do: replace that type of "strategy" with a more intuitive one that relies on a player's abilities rather than their understanding of the game. The end result is roughly the same (a deep and complex strategy game), but one which is more intuitive and has a more gentle learning curve.

Is anyone going to argue that that is not a worthwhile goal? Should we continue to insist that new players pour over our system, stiff through the bugs and outdated help guides, and figure things out in order to play to even a modest standard? I'm the last person who wants to dumb down the game (if anything I'd like to see it rival mainstreem turn based/rts games in terms of complexity), but what successful games like that have in common is a simple interface and simple concepts (a their core). It is from those humble beginnings that grand tactics and strategies are born: look what starcraft or c&c managed with two resources and a few unit production buildings. Even in great turn based games, like axis and allies, there were no cheap tricks (like magically healing your units, stealing retal) that were counter-intuitive and only served to frustrate new players (who weren't "in" on the game's quirks). Sure, there will always be some features like that, but they should not be the basis for successful gameplay at even the most basic levels (if you disagree that they are, keep your eyes on the strat forum, and I'll illustrate some of those "basic" strategies that are anything but intuitive).

Perhaps people see this as only one change, when in reality it opens the door to a whole series of adjustments and allows us to solve problems the current system really cannot fix. The dominance of scouts in the early game, the penalties for having a diverse army (limiting most players to 2-3 troop types in camps): within the current system there's not much we can do about these problems, but with the proposed changes we can try new things (like, my suggestion, raising the full stack size of some troop types) that can make the game much more than a clash of scouts and archers.

If we stay constructive, and put forth ideas, this can be an opportunity for WOL, not a burden.

Last Edited : Sunday, 28 September 2008 - 23:03

On the unlimited barracks idea, there needs to be some sorta limit. One way is to just limit the barracks. The other way is to limit the number of armies. I forget if it is currently in effect, but once you get over so many armies, you need military academies to get more.

Military Academies should be used to limit force size. Make them more significant by greater limiting the # of armies that players can have initially and having Military Academies allow, say, 5 more armies.

You could also combat exponential growth by making costs increase exponentially. Make "Academy Points" players have to buy to allow them to build more MAs (Military Academies). First comes free, next is like 300 gold, next is 600 gold, next is say 1000 gold, and so on. You can have maximum as many MAs as you have Academy Points. If one of your MAs is destroyed, you can rebuild it for the usual cost.

And I like the whole saving up Build Points or whatever idea for barracks

This will also help make mass low-level troops less effective.

-Biodus-

Last Edited : Monday, 29 September 2008 - 13:13

Req,

I like many of the ideas described and dislike a few, however, I think the main point is that the game needs change!

The current system is not working (as evidenced by all the expiring campaigns and the day(s) long wait for battles) so whatever changes you make are welcome. You'll always have many opinions about every little change, however, the growth/decay of active players should ultimately decide whether to make them permanent.

Keep us apprised of your changes and challenge the vets to adjust and new players to learn. Personally, I am looking forward to whatever you decide to throw at us.

Ok, so the plan is now to use Ver2 of this idea.

- Barracks gain say 10 Deploy Points per turn.
- You deploy 1 FULL army when you deploy.
- Each FULL army uses Deploy Points (eg Speamen might cost 10 points, Scouts = 15 points, so some troops may take several turns to save up for).
- Each Barracks has a Max Deploy Points so you cant save up forever.

Part 2 of this idea is to balance the troops, such that there will be 3 levels... Basic, Advanced, Expert.
So there would be Spearmen, Swordsmen & Scouts as BASIC troops, for which all 3 will cost approx the same, and have similar stats.

good idea

well, i see no objections, so i will move forward on making this happen.

of course the difficult part of this is that current games will have a sudden change in the way troops are deployed, and sizes of armies. not much can be done about that im afraid.

the big question now is, when...

as soon as I'm done my games

There will never be a good time. I have three games going, but whatever...

that will affect current ongoing games or only new ones?

all games

could this mean i might stop getting my ass kicked by Laur lol

no. it means he might kick you harder