Yeah sure Blood,
now explain why you didn't have an answer until now.

PS:
Here's looking forward to the 5-pop.

rex

Last Edited : Friday, 10 October 2008 - 22:55

@ Req: I think my proposed upkeep system seems simpler for people to understand... and possibly simpler to be implemented (but ur the programmer of course). It would slow growth as effictively as ur decreasing value MAs, but would be less annoying/tedious (assuming you don't have Coms be able to build 'unlimitedly') It would also work past when you have the MAs reach their minimum value... when MA=1supply, it becomes constant again. My way, the cost+limitations continue to adjust.

-Biodus-

Biodus, buying Academy points is the most complicated option IMO. It introduces another resource/value to manage, that is external to the actual building/deploying process.

If we have an upkeep, i would either reduce barracks Points based on count, or do something with the MA's themselves.

Or we just make Barracks expensive enough that it wouldnt be worth building too many

Why do we need an upkeep system? It seems like gold already limits production quite a bit and makes anything else pointless to impliment. In most of my games my barracks are building up more points than i can use and building any more barracks is pointless.

should we lower the points then...

perhaps start at 40 points per turn, going up to +70 with techs.

Gold prices will change, so we need to make sure the Points matches the output we want.

why not just increase the market tributes amounts to make up any short falls rather than +50 for mines and +12 for gems, +75 and + 18 this would give that extra needed, but also you need to tech up ,don`t make it too easy to get the big troops

thats what im saying harold.

Perhaps +50 points per barracks is too much to start with, giving +80 with all the techs.

not sure why you bring up tribute points tho, as that has nothing to do with troops or deployment.

I'll tell you why upkeep is vital to balance, rather than just making barracks extra expensive.

if you make barracks expensive but no upkeep, it will hold down the little guy more than the big guy - especially with your new market system you mentioned in the new scoring system thread.

tribute. if you can cash it in, and you have more than anybody, then the expensive barracks aren't a problem any more. there won't be any need to hold on to all your points when you are getting them every turn faster than anybody. an open market (where you can buy sold tribute) will help this a bit, but if the little guy is buying the tribute the big guy sold, he'll have even less gold to fight for territory with, so its not going to solve the problem alone. upkeep is necessary.

upkeep will help keep the better off players in check, give the little guy competitive equality - if the system is balanced right.

Don't fool yourself. With the new unlimited barracks system, the little guy has no chance at all. There is no way he can buy as much as the big boys. matrhb and I have killed about 10 to 1 troops of LOD's in the training game. All he has to do is keep pumping out the troops, and it doesn't matter how many we kill. He has at least 10 castles...i have one, and matrhb has 4 or 5...we can win...it's impossible. Numbers over strategy wins.

Remember that the game changed radically in the middle of the proving grounds game. It won't be quite the same in a new one. Perhaps it should be re-started?

And... we really, really need a proving grounds that won't allow high ranked vets in it. One for actual new players to learn in.

hows THIS for a solution to your issues.

FINITE TROOPS!

Each map has a finite number of troops that players can draft & deploy soldiers from. (over time that may slowly increase)

Just like in real life, there are only so many people around that can be trained to fight. yet we have infinite supplies of people here.

FINITE TROOPS!

The current system is what allowed us to have a fight at all, matrhb neb and nightmist against me. In the old system a 3 or 4-1 loss situation wouldnt have been possible for me to keep up with without losing a lot of exp. Now its more realistic in that way. I mean, if Sweden, Lebanon and New Zeeland suddenly would take on China they could kill 10 to one but still lose bigtime in the long run.
Restricting the number of troops on the map is a bad idea. If anything you could restrict the number according to how many castles you own. Maybe a system where corruption lowers efficiency too. The longer from the homecastle the fewer troops the new castels can produce and maintain.
Castle one can maintain for example 30 troops the adjectant ones 27 next 24 and so on. This way there will be a limit to the numbers but still it would be possible to conquer and expand. Remember with long borders you need more troops for defence too.

The way we play the game, long borders don't need more defense. If a player in a real campaign were to get attacked at multiple spots, they'd come crying to the forums that they were being unfairly ganged up on. Then the rest of the community would poo-poo the wrong doers and "order" would be restored. Under this new system, it becomes imperative that weaker players teams up to take on the big boys in any game, or they simply can't keep up and will be picked off more easily than before.

Would it really have been any fun to kill matrhb, nightmist and I separately? You would have walked all over us and probably never even noticed. At least we gave you a challenge for a few turns by teaming up in defense against you...and you will still demolish us in the end.

If you are going to go 'Finite' troops, I like LOD's idea about having #castles designate how many stacks a player can have. I might have the increase from each castle decrease in a near-linear fashion, like 1st=30max, 2nd=50max, 3rd=65max, 4th=75max, 5th=80max, and for castles 6th+, give 4 more max stacks per extra castle.

If you really want to simulate drafting from a population, you would need to introduce a whole new 'resource' such as fertility rate or peasant population and open a whole new can-o-worms. (like make a MA into a house and say each house gives +1 pop/turn, and a new unit stack costs 1 or more pop per stack. And somehow make pop gain decrease as a player gets bigger)

2 side-notes:
-The different troop levels should be adjusted so that the stronger levels take more 'supply' or whatever u wanna call it. I.E.:Basic Unit stack costs 1 supply; Advanced Unit stack costs 1.5 supply; Master Unit stack costs 2 supply.
-Gold income from castles should decrease similarly to how I suggested they have #stacks allowed decrease (but less drastically). I suggest 90% income for 2nd, 80% for 3rd, and continue decreasing by 10% until 40 or 50%, then stay the same from there.

-Biodus-

Yes, having a finite number of troops on the map means player x trains a whole bunch of low level troops, depriving payer y of population. When the time comes player x suicides those troops and, just as quickly, builds better ones to replace them, meaning y never has a chance to get his fair share. While perhaps not as drastically, something like this is bound to happen more often than not, giving the guy that gets big first an even bigger advantage. As bio said, if you want to introduce population it needs to be done more carefully (and less arbitrarily) than simply capping the number of units on the map.

Mm, as a side-note, I just played thru a training game to familiarize/refresh myself w/ the system. It would be nice if when you clicked on a barracks to deploy troops, it listed your total points @ that barracks above the point cost for the stacks. If it fits, it would also be really nice to show ur current gold and the cost in gold for each stack w/o having to click to 'deploy' first.

-Biodus-
(make sure not to miss my post above )