And actually, you must remember that not too long ago Req bumped the starting resources and techs...can you imagine the old economy trying to support this many troops!

Funny how that worked out

@ Requiem: Yes, I mean exactly like food/supply or upkeep. Upkeep would be more accurate because it considers that the logistics of supplying a linearly increasing force increase in cost @ a faster rate than the force size itself increases.

If you make it so that Military Academies(MAs) give a set amount of 'food', and each new MA costs the same, that is using a food/supply system and just makes exponential growth irritating (Gotta have space and coms to keep up with growth speed). Balancing resources isn't so much an issue unless you make MAs really expensive, which is impractical. It doesn't really limit exponential growth that much.

I suggested earlier that players could need to buy 'Academy Points'(APs), and they may build as many MAs as they have APs; they would be purchased on whichever page you (Req) deem fit. Could make it a 'tech'. It shouldn't be too hard to make it so that each additional AP purchased costs more than the previous one, at a rate you deem appropriate. You could even have a theoretically unlimited number of APs as long as you can keep up with the increasing price.

I wouldn't make each additional MA (the building itself) increase in price because then if someone killed any one of another player's MAs, it would/could be catastrophic for that player cost-wise. And this isn't really fair or logical when the structure is the same as all it's predecessors. The price for APs is increasing because the 'invisible' food/supply line is becoming more complicated and thus more costly to maintain.

-Biodus-

Last Edited : Wednesday, 8 October 2008 - 13:12

err thats what i m saying...u dont have higher lvl troops killing all these spikes and scouts...lol

yea wish we could get more gold or resorces when u kill army or buildings.

now that armies are 10pop, you should get more gold/exp anyway, since you are killing more troops per attack (compared to 1 or 5 pop armies)

there are 2 easy ways to simulate upkeep.

1. Military Academies
Each MA you get provides .5 less armies. eg...
1st = +5 armies
2nd = +5 armies
3rd = +4 armies
4th = +4 armies
5th = +3 armies
6th = +3, 7th = +2, 8th = +2, 9th and above = +1 only.
So once you have built 8 MAs, you can have +28 armies. Each MA after that gives you +1 only. So you'd need alot of MA's to get massive amounts of armies, but still possible.

2. Barracks Points
Barracks start at 54 points per turn.
Each Barracks you own subtracts 2 points from each Barracks.
So when you start with 2 Barracks, each Barracks gives you +50 points per turn (54 each minus 2x2 = 50 each).
So if you build more barracks, each one gives less.
eg.. If you had 8 Barracks, each Barracks would grow at +38 points instead of the default +50.
More Barracks = slightly slower growth, but still more troops overall.
2 Barracks = 100points total (50x2)
3 Barracks = 144points total (48x3)
4 Barracks = 184points total (46x4)
8 Barracks = 304points total (38x8)
14 Barracks = 364points total (26x14) the best before totals start dropping

"I sent out 4000 emails to players who went missing, and many replied citing the complexity of the game as an issue, and the slowness."-Requiem

Just a little reminder Req.

rex

yes i know. you think that the above is complicated?

each new Barracks = -2, or MA's progressively give you less armies. Sounds simple enough.

Otherwise, we could just throw an absolute max of 100 armies like most RTS games

A little complicated, but more so adding more lead (weight/slowmess) to the game indirectly through costs via poorly productive facilities.

rex

thats how all upkeep systems work.
they slow you down as you get bigger, either by climbing prices/costs or slower production, etc

looks intresting and more balanced. but wont really know untill i play a game.

right now me and renno is doing an test game. definitly more action and fun but gold shortage. we notice the health and cost went down some.


only real thing that was little confusing to me was not able to join game right away had to do training and things of that nature. finding the right menue for right game and show games ect.

I suggest implementing all three.

The upkeep on the military academy rule seems close to balanced already. we could test it, and if it seems to need adjustment, the price or depreciation of troop #'s could be changed, but it seems right.

The barracks upkeep I would change some.
first, I thought barracks were going to give something like 15 points per turn. what happened? anyhow, I'm going to assume 54 points equals about 15 old points, this is all theory anyway, right? 15 used to mean close to one spearsmen. now 54 = close to one spearsmen? moving on.

I would say that the formula req suggested is mostly fine:
points per turn = n(54-2n)
where n = # barracks

this works, but for one annoying problem: the barracks work for two things, one is upping # troop output per turn, but the other is location. Its gonna get real annoying having a large # troop per turn, but no one location getting more than a couple.
for instance, replace n with 14. 26 points... something like half a spear stack per turn?

The solution I'd say would be to have a tech that allowed for troop production to go to a different barracks. this requires further thought, because the expense would need to match the convenience, and I've got to get to work soon.

Last, the troop # limit. I think this would be good, as well, but I think it should be a variable number, depending on the size of the map - or if you will, the # of participants. 10 players? maybe 70 or 100 is a good cap. 40 players? maybe 150 or 200.

anyhow, I think that they are all good ideas and working together they'd be even better.

Last Edited : Thursday, 9 October 2008 - 13:54

^ector, to solve that problem (too many barracks), you would simply remove the ones you no longer need. more strategic decisions to be made.

this is how many games do it too.

As far as complexity, to answer TR, it doesn't really matter how complex the system itself is, only how complex (and counter-intuitive) the elements players have to deal with are. These are, on the surface, fairly simple (and more importantly logical) ways to do things. I think a scaling system is easier for people to grasp, and more fluid, than having a static number (either max barracks, armies, etc.).

I think we do need to reign in people just endlessly building barracks as they move forward without even bothering with the ones in the rear; as Req likes to say, decisions decisions .

"I believe at one point there that req was going to introduce a 5 pop tech ,10 pops of higher level troops does take time and you need alot of cash and resources to deploy them , i think a 5 pop tech would be a good idea."-sir marc antony

Req,
why so stubborn?
You have to realise that cost-wise this ten-pop deployment is going to slow the game down to a crawl ...
I've been reading comments of players already in camps and that's the impression I'm getting,

Why not forego both ten-pops and one-pops, compromise and change the general deployment to five-pops?

rex

I think, and I commented on this in the other thread already, that a 5 pop tech was already planned (but just not implemented yet, at least, that's my impression). I think making five pop the basic stack is the wrong way to go though, TR. Since the pop max is currently ten, a player can just combine two five pops and get a ten. With ten as the basic, a player needs to research a tech before they can order a different number of troops than the standard. Keeping it maxed is the only way to make troop size a factor in the game. I think, particularly for units like HC and Knights, a 5 pop option is very useful, but it should be something you have to work for, not the norm. The idea is to put out "full strength units," like in the battle game, and making 5 pop the standard just makes things weird .

I will ask, though, that we finally take care of the weird numbered troops (i.e. swords at 61 points, scouts at 78). Can we at least have them in multiples of 5 to make things a little more even...it's a real pain to have 60 points in a barracks and not be able to train a swordsman. Is that one extra point really that important

Blood,
you finally forced me to have to say that sometimes your sense of logic totally escapes me:

1) Why would five-pops as the normal production make "things weird"?
2) Why is there something wrong with combining two five-pops to get a ten-pop?
3) Why are we supposed to concern ourselves in the camps and duels with how troops are deployed in the battle games?

rex

Last Edited : Thursday, 9 October 2008 - 19:18

5-pop may become an expensive UPGRADE tech for Barracks, that you would need to purchase at each Barracks if you wanted it.

thats as far as i will go with deploying lower pops

Can you make it REAL expensive?

Amazing

It makes things weird because the standard is 10 in battle games and 5 in everything else; why complicate things by making them different?

There's nothing "wrong" with it, i guess, if you make troop combination a tech...in other words, people couldn't just do it from the get go. My point was that, unless we redid the troop combination system, you could just spit out 5 pops and combine them to ten when you needed them...which, in Req's observation, makes it too easy to have "small" stacks crowding bigger ones (much like we have now). Keeping the standard ten (with a 5 option) allows the big stacks to be the norm with the small ones the exception (which is what we're moving towards).

Because, to a new player, it's all variations on the same game. If it's one set of standards over here, and another over there, it begs the question why? I know they've been treated as separate entities in the past, but if we want a more cohesive game (and we have the opportunity to make it that way) I see no reason not to take it.

We can argue the vagaries of my logic , but ultimately ten pop as the standard is what we have; I'm merely trying to justify why that makes sense to me. You're more than welcome to disagree, but I'm not the one with any power in the matter, so my opinion is not really relevant .