Messages

841

Suggestions Corner / Re: Website warriors vs actually c-rpg players

« on: August 17, 2011, 04:24:08 pm »

If the most one one player could ever have is 100 troops then it would be impossible probably to ever take a fief unless you buy the best gear money can buy for every slot and every ticket. For this to work they need a way to combine the troops into a single force so that is possible to still capture places. It would just require organisation instead of dumping all your troops on your clan leader or w/e.

You are probably right and my numbers are a bit out.  But I just included them to help illustrate the idea and am happy for them to be reworked.  Personally I think this would allow all the numbers in the game to be reworked as I really think 5000 tickets for a castle is a little extreme, especially for the castles that barely have enough room for a couple of hundred people in them.  I don't really have the time or Strat knowledge to judge the proper balance of numbers however.

As for organisation over dumping troops - isn't this a good thing?  The pro's I can think of so far are;
- Pressure would no longer be dumped on just a few people within a clan, it would be spread out.
- Instead of most people having virtually nothing to do except log in every few days to transfer gold and troops, everybody gets to join in. 
- People not in clans can work as solo mercenaries, earning cash to turn their mercenary band it to a higly equipped killing machine (will require a few other tweaks to gameplay along with those that you mentioned about joining armies together for battles - see below)
- The current system of unlimited numbers of troops within the game, means steam rolling is not only possible, but inevitable.  This would no longer be true.
- Get the balance right and small clans at the start of the game get a much better chance at taking a village.
- Alliances become more transparent on Strategus.  E.g. an allied faction members can contribute troops to the strat battle as well as their faction members joining in the actual battle.

Finally, the mechanism i'd suggest for battles would be as follows.
- Every character on strat remains a seperate entity at all times.
- When a battle is initiated by 1 character attacking another character or attacking a village/castle/town the initial characters (or fief owner) become the Battle Commanders.
- Anybody within range and anybody who gets within range within 24 hours can then click the battle and apply to join on which ever side they choose (stating their requested fee).
- The Battle Commanders also get to see the total value of their potential ally's equipment. This is because in order to accept someone as an ally in a battle you must be able to put a deposit down for the same value as all their equipment.
- Once accepted the Battle Commander gains all the tickets of their ally as well as access to their equipment.  At this point the ally can no longer buy equipment, but the Battle commander can.
- It is now up to the Battle Commander to decide who they actually hire for the fight, pay their fees and fill any gaps in equipment before the fight starts.
- Once the fight is over, the winning commander gets their equipment deposit back minus the cost of any equipment lost by their ally.

That should work

842

Suggestions Corner / Re: Website warriors vs actually c-rpg players

« on: August 17, 2011, 01:51:47 pm »

I don't know if this was what Growl fought off but why not just make Strategus like Mount and Blade single player and limit the number of troops people can lead?

Say 100 troops for a normal player
500 for a fief owner
5000 for a castle owner
20000 for a town owner

That would mean clans actually need a good sized active core to move enough troops around to start tackling villages, castles and towns.  It would also add a point to taking castles and slow down the rate at which villages are initially taken allowing more clans to get a foothold in Strategus when the next reset comes.

843

Suggestions Corner / Re: A balance for crossbow and archery.

« on: August 16, 2011, 03:51:25 pm »

Can I ask you, why you make an example with 6WM statistics? With standart 15\24 xbowman build you'll have at least 8WM. Enough for 150 in xbows and 111 in 2H. And 100+ in 2H is enough for battle. Especially with fast weapons like mace or langes messer.

I used 6WM as that's what my current xbow build is it so i know the figures.  If people want to go 8WM then fair enough but that means just 15 strength and 5 PS.  Not exactly an amazing melee build which doesn't go against my point that crossbow users do have to sacrifice melee capability which is what brings them into balance.  As for the mace and langes messer being fast enough for you to cope with only 100 wpf - that's eaxactly why i think them being 1 slot weapons is a loophole in the slot system which should be closed.

I really like your suggestion. ONLY 54 PIERCE damage. ONLY 10 Pierce damage more than Masterwork Jarid.

I'm not sure what your point is here? I was just pointing out that there is a significant difference between a 1 slot crossbow and a 2 slot Arbalast. Where do Jarids come into it?

I have another awesome suggestion. Let's make all shields 4 slot items, and all 2H and polearms 5 slots weapons. Just for lulz.

What exactly is your view on crossbow users.  You seem to be saying that they are overpowered as people can use them and still have enough wpf to be competitive when using weapons such as the Mace or Langes Messer.  However, when i suggest something that would prevent this and bring those weapons into line with all other weapons you rubbish the suggestion.

844

Suggestions Corner / Re: Archery. Some interesting Stuff. You dont care about.

« on: August 16, 2011, 02:22:36 pm »

Despite the modern view that longbows had trouble penetrating high quality plate armour after about 1350, as late as 1415, the hail of arrows created by massed ranks of thousands of longbowmen helped to win the battle against plate armoured French knights at Agincourt. The French mounted charge against the English defensive position was ineffectual. The vast majority of the French knights advanced on foot, but exhausted by walking across wet muddy terrain in heavy armour and being buffeted by thousands of arrows, they were overwhelmed when the English longbowmen (using their swords and mauls) joined the hand-to-hand fighting in support of the English men-at-arms.

So basically the damn things are pathetic against anything higher then transitional armour...

More cool stuff from your own sources:
The range of the medieval weapon is unknown, with estimates from 165 to 228 m (180 to 249 yds). Modern longbows have a useful range up to 180 m (200 yd). A 667N(150 lbf) Mary Rose replica longbow was able to shoot a 53.6 g (1.9 oz) arrow 328 m (360 yd) and a 95.9 g (3.3 oz) a distance of 249.9 m (272 yd).[18] A flight arrow of a professional archer of Edward III's time would reach 400yds. It is also well known that no practice range was allowed to be less than 220yds by order of Henry VIII.[19]
The longbow had a long range and high accuracy, but not both at the same time. Most of the longer range shooting mentioned in stories was not marksmanship, but rather thousands of archers launching volleys of arrows at an entire army. Longbowmen armies would aim at an area and shoot a rain of arrows hitting indiscriminately at anyone in the area, a decidedly un-chivalrous but highly effective means of combat. An archer could hit a person at 165 m (180 yards) "part of the time" and could always hit an army.[citation needed]
Gerald of Wales commented on the power of the Welsh longbow in the 12th century:
... n the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal.[20]
In a modern test, a direct hit from a steel bodkin point penetrated Damascus chain armour.[21][22]
However, even heavy draw longbows have trouble penetrating well made steel plate armour, which was used increasingly after 1350. A 2006 test was made by Matheus Bane using a 75 lbf (330 N) draw (at 28") bow, shooting at 10 yards; according to Bane's calculations, this would be approximately equivalent to a 110 lbf (490 N) bow at 250 yards.[23] Measured against a replica of the thinnest contemporary "Jack coat" armour, a 905 grain needle bodkin and a 935 grain curved broadhead penetrated over 3.5 inches (89 mm). ("Jack coat" armour could be up to twice as thick as the coat tested; in Bane's opinion such a thick coat would have stopped bodkin arrows but not the cutting force of broadhead arrows.) Against "high quality riveted maille", the needle bodkin and curved broadhead penetrated 2.8". Against a coat of plates, the needle bodkin achieved 0.3" penetration. The curved broadhead did not penetrate but caused 0.3" of deformation of the metal. Results against plate armour of "minimum thickness" (1.2mm) were similar to the coat of plates, in that the needle bodkin penetrated a small amount, the other arrows did not penetrate. In Bane's view, the plate armour would have kept out all the arrows if thicker or worn with more padding.
So according to this, longbows need a heavy nerf against the armour we have now in game, gotcha...

HEY FASADER! I need you for a second...

Just a point that we should take Matheus Bane's findings with a pinch of salt.  He uses a 75lb bow at 10 yards and calcuates that this is the equivalent of a 110lb at 250 yards.  On his tests he fails to significantly penetrate thin (1.2mm) plate armour.  This is fine by me although i'd like to see his "calculation", but my point is "What would the 150lb Mary Rose bow have done at 10 yards?"

845

Suggestions Corner / Re: A balance for crossbow and archery.

« on: August 16, 2011, 02:00:20 pm »

I think Xbows and Bows are pretty much balanced right now tbh.  A skilled Longbow user will nearly always beat a skilled arbalast user in a straight fight with no cover due to the fact that the Arbalast user has to stand still to reload which takes an age.

Furthermore it can be argued that crossbow users need the ability to get some melee proficiency due to the fact that they are much more likely to get caught up in a melee.  The Arbalast has one chance to kill a closing melee opponent.  If that fails then unless you have team mates to rescue you, you have to stand and fight as running away is pointless - you'll never gain enough distance on your opponent to have enough time to reload.

Wpf does affect crossbow reload times and the chance to break so xbow users do have to use it.  For the record once you've put 100 points into crossbow proficiency you're limited to just 133 points in a 2nd proficiency at level 30 with 6WM.  It doesn't exactly make you the melee killing machine that some people think xbow users are.  Using an Arbalast without wpf just loses you cash and if you use an arbalast you only have 1 slot left for melee weapons.  Most people using an xbow as a sidearm are using the 1 slot crossbow which only has 54 pierce damage compared to 81 making it significantly less powerful.  For instance, i'm pretty sure the crossbow doesn't fire through shields

Having said all that I do think a couple of changes could be made to make things a little more realistic. 

1)  At least 50 wpf should be required to use a 2 slot xbow.  This would stop randomers picking up Arbalasts on the Battlefield (or using them in Strat).

2)  Make all weapons useable with 2 hands into 2 slot weapons.  I'm referring to the Mace, Langes Messer, Staff, Quarter Staff and Military Fork here and really they just act as loopholes to get round the slot system.  This would make sure that Arbalast and Longbow users do actually suffer some sort of melee penalty - either having to use a 1H weapon with no shield or a shield with a very weak 1H weapon.

846

Suggestions Corner / Re: Deployable Spikes

« on: August 11, 2011, 09:53:28 pm »

evey one(except you apperently) knows that a horse will charge into a stake.
and there is no AI for horses ffs, and the point of stakes was to hurt horses.
if what you say is true, and horses wont go to stakes or guys with spears, than why were stakes pointy? BECAUSE HORSES DID RUN INTO THEM FFS!!!

Ok - lets try some simple logic.

Lets say you are right and that a rider can make a horse run into a stake.
By the same token, a rider can make a horse run into a man, which are afterall soft and squishy.
Again by the same token, the rider can charge their horse into a group of men.

Why then, could Cavalry NOT make their horses run into a group of men aiming spears (or bayonets) at them?  It can't be the men because both you and I agree that its perfectly reasonable for Cavalry to charge infantry.  In fact before the introduction of the Pike it was the dominant Cavalry tactic on the Battlefield (cavalry riding knee to knee in a dense formation and mowing down everything in front of them).  This is why Pikes were used!  If it was the wall of men that stopped horses from charging, then the pike and subsequently the bayonet would never have been needed.

As for why stakes are pointy.  Well that's to deter horses from walking past them.  A horse won't charge blunt stakes either, but once close enough to realise they won't hurt, a horse will walk past them.  A sharp stake on the other hand will continue to worry the horse and cause the rider considerably more problems when trying to get through a line of stakes.

Btw Tears, we're talking about charging into stakes rather than jumping over them.  However, perhaps you are right though and deployable cRPG stakes should cause damage to horses even if its just to punish the idiocy of their riders.

847

Suggestions Corner / Re: Deployable Spikes

« on: August 11, 2011, 05:19:22 pm »

if the horse is confident it can make the jump, it will do so, ofc if ther isn't an easier way. but if the rider forces the horse to make a jump, over in this case stakes, though the horse isn't sure it will make it, it will do it. maybe you haven't succeeded in doing so, but i have, do you think any horse thinks it's nice to jump over a freaking 2m high fence with cold water behind it, no. from what you are stating, a horse would never make a jump like that, though they do.

When did I state that horses can't jump 2m high fences with water behind them?  If you read what I say I argue that horses gain the confidence to jump bigger obstacles by first going over smaller obstacles.  This is called training - something which is impossible to do for charging into a sharp object due to its inherently fatal nature.  Or are you saying you can take any untrained horse with the physical attributes to jump a 2m high fence and get it to jump that fence first time every time?

848

Suggestions Corner / Re: Deployable Spikes

« on: August 11, 2011, 02:56:55 pm »

horses wont jusmp into a solid piece of mass, like a testudo formation but they will charge into some samigos sticked randomly in the ground.(seriously, look it up on wikipedia or something)

Only if they don't see the stakes.  Horses aren't stupid, they won't do things they think will hurt them.  Just look at how they train show jumping horses.  Initially the horse will try and avoid even a low jump so they first lie a jump rail on the floor and walk the horse over it.  This proves to the horse that going over the rail doesn't hurt.  Gradually they raise the height of the rail forcing the horse to start jumping, but each time proving to the horse that it doesn't hurt.  Finally they end up with a horse that will jump stupidly high fences but even then if you get the approach wrong the horse will turn away.

How do you propose they prove to a horse that running onto a spike doesn't hurt?

849

Suggestions Corner / Re: Deployable Spikes

« on: August 11, 2011, 02:30:00 pm »

it would, if the rider would enforce the animal to charge up to it. a horse wouldn't charge into a group of guys with spears aimed at the horse you say. well it does when the rider enforces the charge, same story, and you are right it wouldn't if it were on it's own, but with the rider, you get it.

That's not actually true.  If it were true then Cavalry would have always been able to beat infantry squares during the Napoleonic era.  All it would have take was for 1 brave rider to take the risk and make the charge.  The fact is that the horses ALWAYS shied away and refused to charge the wall of men with bayonets.  The only recorded instance of cavalry breaking a well formed square in the entire peninsular war was when a horse was shot just before the point it would have turned away and the then dead horses momentum carried it into the the wall of bayonets forming a breach for other horsemen to charge into.  The other times cavalry managed to break a square were when the square was poorly formed or the Cav had Infantry/Artillery support.

850

Suggestions Corner / Re: Deployable Spikes

« on: August 11, 2011, 01:49:19 pm »

Why not just let people plant single stakes only.  Each Stake takes up 1 slot and you can carry/deploy as many as you have room for.  This way, deploying a wall of stakes is a team effort and a single person bringing a stake to a battle won't really benefit at all.

As for damage I don't think there should be any.  Horses should just rear up and stop as in IRL a horse would not be stupid enough to charge onto something that will hurt them.

851

Suggestions Corner / Re: Suggestion: Add a "chance for stagger effect" when blocking unbalanced weapons

« on: August 11, 2011, 01:01:26 pm »

Makes sense but only if you also include a chance for unbalanced weapon users to be disarmed when they connect with a bad swing.

852

General Discussion / Re: Feedback new soak/reduce values

« on: August 10, 2011, 12:14:28 pm »

Are there seperate Soak and Reduction values for different Armour types or is it just the 1 set of values for all armour?

853

Strategus General Discussion / Re: Strategus AI stuff

« on: July 16, 2011, 05:10:29 pm »

You could use (average life expectancy) x (total damage dealt) to work out who the best players are.

This way

1) rewards those that help to kill the enemy and not just those who land the fatal blow.
2) rewards those that survive without rewarding those that survive by hiding and not doing anything.
3) doesn't reward 2H spammers who charge in picking up lots of quick kills before dying themselves.

Without knowing typical values for average life expectancy or total damage dealt I wouldn't have any idea how to weight the equation but it would probably be best if only chadz knew that anyway.  Of course this might really overpower the AI as in theory team players would get the highest reward.

If you add in a "time since last strategus battle for the AI" factor as well then that would help the newer, more casual and ineffective Startegus players out a bit as well and get them involved.  Clan members can get extra battle time from their clans and allies so shouldn't be too badly affected and the best solo players will get hired by clans since they are that damn good.  This would help limit how overpowered the AI is as well.

854

Faction Halls / Re: [Fallen]The Fallen Brigade (Recruiting EU/NA)

« on: July 15, 2011, 09:03:46 pm »

Apply to the forums as Fallen_blahnameheeblah and sign up in the roster as a recruit and stuff and stuff and all the other stuff.  The Brigade has a lot of paperwork, so be warned!

Oh and hang out in our TS often so we get to know each other.

I applied for Fallen_Tomas on the forums earlier so hopefully that should be sorted soon

Need to get myself a mic for TS.  Having to type in there is a pain although i'll still pop in and say hi.  I'll try and get the mic this weekend sometime though so hopefully won't be stuck typing for too long.

855

Faction Halls / Re: [Fallen]The Fallen Brigade (Recruiting EU/NA)

« on: July 15, 2011, 06:01:44 pm »

Hey,

After a message from Everkistus, a spy on your TS server and a quick look through your forum info, I think you look like a really good clan (especially for team play) so i'd like to join up if you'll have me

I'm 25, live in the UK, try and get on cRPG most afternoons/evenings and am currently a lvl 30 sword&board char.  Not sure what else you need to know here but will happily answer any questions

Cheers,

Tomas