Author Topic: A different strategus and stuff  (Read 2156 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Aderyn

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 365
  • Infamy: 243
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: The Kalmar Union
  • Game nicks: Aderyn
Re: A different strategus and stuff
« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2012, 08:36:30 am »
0
the only thing i really want is maps that reflect where the battle takes place. Desert, tundra, hills, mountains etc. strat already knows if your in the desert/hills/steppe. =)
Can't spell manslaughter without laughter.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Lepintoi

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Renown: 81
  • Infamy: 18
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Shu Han
  • Game nicks: Lepintoi
Re: A different strategus and stuff
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2012, 08:26:34 am »
0
I don't believe these suggestions add to the semi-realistic person based diplomacy now. For me all that needs to be fixed is the massive advantage of the defending side and an incentive to capture more lands. Perhaps a capital system. If you hold the City you can control (production points/transfer/kick out and so on) all the villages within range of that city and owned by your faction. Thus making capitals more important to capture and player numbers less important to hold large areas.

Offline Garem

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 268
  • Infamy: 37
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
    • The Black Company forums
  • Faction: The Black Company
  • Game nicks: Garem_BlackCompany
Re: A different strategus and stuff
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2012, 02:29:22 pm »
0
this suggestions TOTALly sounds like a wildly popular WAR simulation game where economics matter but don't require constant attention. and those games do the economics of war very, very well.
The Black Company's Strategus Trainer
http://forum.melee.org/faction-halls/black-company-recruiting-na/
Forums: http://nadeathsquad.freeforums.org/
Formerly of the Fallen Brigade, Homeys4Lyfe

Offline Knute

  • Strategus Councillor
  • **
  • Renown: 682
  • Infamy: 21
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Free Peasants of Fisdnar
Re: A different strategus and stuff
« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2012, 10:39:50 pm »
+1
..there were pretty colours :D

Sold.

Quote
..strategus map was tile or region based, with players moving from tile to tile, and being able to interact with anything that was in the tile
..you would control tiles, regardless of whether or not there are fiefs in it

I've been playing a lot of Planetside 2 recently and this sounds similar to it's hex system, which I like.  For people who haven't tried PS2 (it's a free game and awesome btw), there's 3 factions that start in opposite corners of the map and then move outward capturing bases which have a couple surrounding hexes connected to them.  The bases give your faction resource points to buy vehicles and if any hexes are disconnected from your main base in the corner of the map, you no longer get resources from them.

(click to show/hide)

If they ever wanted to give natural resources a try in strategus this hex system might be the way to go.  Villages could gain resources from terrain in adjacent hexes like mines on mountains, forests supply timber, steppes give you horses and so on.

Offline Teeth

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 2550
  • Infamy: 1057
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Bishop A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: A different strategus and stuff
« Reply #19 on: December 09, 2012, 12:10:28 pm »
0
How about we just all go play Europa Universalis 3 instead?  8-)

I would love for Strategus to be a lot deeper with a lot more mechanics. What I like about current Strategus though is that the rather simple base game allows for a lot of community creativity as far as for example diplomacy goes. Ever played a game of monopoly where agreements outside the base game mechanics were allowed? It is tons of fun, with loans, investments and everything happening. Which is probably what the devs expected to happen in Strategus. That roleplaying would create proper diplomacy by itself, with players acting insulted, photoshopping treaties and doing all sorts of pretend drama. There is so much potential for player created mechanics.

Now for as far as I have heard, this was a lot more actually the case in the first Strategus, with every faction doing its own things, forming alliances on the go and declaring war because it made sense. I normally detest the term metagaming and I think it is for nerds, but the second Strat was basically ruined by it. People formed the same alliances, claimed the same stuff and all actual rational diplomacy was gone. Fuck you UIF for ruining what could have been good. The Russo-Polish 'I define my selfworth by the ability to win in a game' mentality killed all roleplay and proper player created mechanics and replaced all the inside Strat roleplay drama with actual drama. Third Strat was the same shit but then even worse. I am very sorry for the devs that a certain mentality which they did not foresee killed their vision of a game.

Now Strategus can work in its current form and with UIF quitting Strat, we might even see it happen if the other groups of players manage to reassess how they want to play the game. The safer option though is implementing actual hard mechanics which will enforce that the game is played the way its meant to be played. A turn based system would make everything so much easier and I highly encourage the devs to go into that direction to save them a lot of headache.

tl;dr version: Devs thought we would play the game in a certain cool way, we did until UIF shit on it, now UIF left so we can play properly once again or pick the safer option and create stricter mechanics.

Offline RamsesXXIIX

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 252
  • Infamy: 65
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Yes, I prey on the weak.
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Fallen
  • Game nicks: Fallen_Ramses
Re: A different strategus and stuff
« Reply #20 on: December 09, 2012, 12:50:41 pm »
+1
(click to show/hide)

Three things I think you should remember:

1.
The UIF was formed in the first strat, and it bogged the game down to its WW1 fashion there. The Fallen Brigade was actually the last major power that offered resistance (There were others around, like Northern Empire) in strat 1. When our assault miserably failed nothing happened in the game for a long time.

2.
The UIF is not a Russo-Polish alliance. The UIF was spearheaded by an highly international clan (22nd) and upon its creation it featured Polish, Russian, Italian and international clans. (Like Nordmen and 22nd). Later on even more ethnic groups appeared, like Turks. Yes, you can say they were mostly Russian and (later) Polish, but its wrong to simply classify them as that.

3.
My dreams for strategus would be that the game in many ways will return to the style it had at the start of Strat 1: Every faction for itself (Mostly), smaller wars, more unpredictability and peace treaties. However, its gonna be a big question if the current anti-UIF will simply do this: After all, they've been friends for a very long time and have grown accustomed to this kind of game. I hope for it, but it might just be too radical. Only time will tell. And honestly, we might just be nostalgic, thinking back to the first months of strategus.

PS: The UIF is not completely destroyed yet anyway, so there's still some killing to for the anti-UIF :)

PPS: Any reason for the -1 Naduril? Did I post something incorrect?
« Last Edit: December 09, 2012, 12:58:41 pm by RamsesXXIIX »

Offline Zlisch_The_Butcher

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1272
  • Infamy: 971
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Faction: Frisian Church of Mork The Goat God
  • Game nicks: Zlisch
  • IRC nick: IRC nick: Tears
Re: A different strategus and stuff
« Reply #21 on: December 09, 2012, 12:53:58 pm »
+1
PS: The UIF is not completely destroyed yet anyway, so there's still some killing to for the anti-UIF :)
Pro tip: They all stopped playing, lol.
1H stab is the fastest, strongest and longest 1H animation. There's no reason NOT to use it in all instances. I don't know if it's OP, but it's boring. 1H used to be fun because you had a fast (left), long (right) and the most devastating attack (stab) and had to choose the best attack for each occasion.

Offline RamsesXXIIX

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 252
  • Infamy: 65
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Yes, I prey on the weak.
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Fallen
  • Game nicks: Fallen_Ramses
Re: A different strategus and stuff
« Reply #22 on: December 09, 2012, 12:57:28 pm »
+1
They might be stopping to play, but they still have armies in the field and fiefs that can be taken. I don't think the UIF will seriously delete everything or refuse to give a fight for their fiefs, I just think they will stop making counterattacks and trading. Which means their defeat will take less time, but its definitely not there yet.

Offline Molly

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1860
  • Infamy: 693
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Rook A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
    • For the glorious Khorin...
  • Game nicks: Molly
Re: A different strategus and stuff
« Reply #23 on: December 09, 2012, 01:02:20 pm »
0
You got me with pretty. colours!
When west germany annexed east germany, nobody moved a finger too.

Offline Teeth

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 2550
  • Infamy: 1057
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Bishop A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: A different strategus and stuff
« Reply #24 on: December 09, 2012, 01:23:05 pm »
+1
1.
The UIF was formed in the first strat, and it bogged the game down to its WW1 fashion there. The Fallen Brigade was actually the last major power that offered resistance (There were others around, like Northern Empire) in strat 1. When our assault miserably failed nothing happened in the game for a long time.
I know but even though UIF brought the game down, all was not lost if they would just disband for Strat 2. Starting with a clean slate, as most factions claim to do with every round, but they end up allying, claiming and fighting in exactly the same manner. Strat 1 was already not perfect, but atleast most factions started out with the correct mindset and there was actual roleplaying going on, as you seem to confirm in point 3.

2.
The UIF is not a Russo-Polish alliance. The UIF was spearheaded by an highly international clan (22nd) and upon its creation it featured Polish, Russian, Italian and international clans. (Like Nordmen and 22nd). Later on even more ethnic groups appeared, like Turks. Yes, you can say they were mostly Russian and (later) Polish, but its wrong to simply classify them as that.
I know it is a very diverse alliance but in atleast Strat 3 and 4 I think it is fair to say that Grey Order and Druzhina were the leading clans and therefore the entire alliance reflected their mentalities when it comes to playing Strategus, very undesirable mentalities if I may say so. I just use the term UIF to avoid longer descriptions.

I just plead to you as an important figure in your clan and all the other clan leaders that with the departure and eventual defeat of the UIF, to think about how you want to play this game and I hope you guys don't continue to play like UIF forced you to. Please split up the big alliance and seek out some good small wars and alliances. As far as roster strength of big alliances go, if we could all just establish that neutral factions are allowed to merc in battles for other clans without this being a declaration of allegiance or war, there wont be any roster problems.


Offline BASNAK

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1349
  • Infamy: 170
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: MolonLave_Garlic
Re: A different strategus and stuff
« Reply #25 on: December 09, 2012, 01:44:40 pm »
+4
Teeth is right, the "don't apply against our allies allies allies ally" mentality needs to stop. In many battles you see clans QQ'ing on their members for applying for the other side, which is annoying as fuck. But Nords take the price when they  threatened whomever would apply for the opposing side with war, I mean come on, really?

When I first started off as a rebel I almost had to beg people to fight for me because I couldn't fill up my roster, and why? Because half the map was allied to the ones I was attacking. And everyone I would ask would just apply for the other side or just stay out because they are allied. People will starve your roster to death because of these pacts.

An army of 2000 shining army can be beat by an army of 10, if no one applies for the army of 2000, which is gay and gives you a great advantage if you're in an block alliance. The roster starving needs to stop, and I think if your roster is full and your enemies is not, people that are left out from your roster should go fight for the other side, even your own clan members.

What strategus needs is more respect between clans in war, where anyone could apply for any side, even against your own allies. Factions lead armies, but who ever the fuck fights them shouldnt matter. This lets smaller clans grind large armies and attack whomever they want. So fight your enemies fairly, dont starve their rosters and dont win unfair victories.This is my opinion.



« Last Edit: December 09, 2012, 01:47:54 pm by BASNAK »
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline RamsesXXIIX

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 252
  • Infamy: 65
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Yes, I prey on the weak.
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Fallen
  • Game nicks: Fallen_Ramses
Re: A different strategus and stuff
« Reply #26 on: December 09, 2012, 01:52:33 pm »
+1
Before I go ahead and rant:

THIS POST CONTAINS ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION, AND DOES NOT IN ANY WAY REPRESENT THE OPINION OF THE FALLEN BRIGADE OR THE COALITION.

Its basically an inactive, old leaders thoughts ;)

(click to show/hide)

Offline [ptx]

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1871
  • Infamy: 422
  • cRPG Player Sir White Rook A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • such OP. so bundle of sticks. wow.
    • View Profile
Re: A different strategus and stuff
« Reply #27 on: December 09, 2012, 02:05:08 pm »
+1
Teeth got it right, this is all aimed towards eliminating the allying meta-game. We can, of course, put on nostalgia glasses and think that Strat1 was so cool because of some mentality or whatever, but, imo, it was simply because everyone was new to it and still discovering the ways to win at it.

Also, there was a mega-alliance in strat1, from the start. Templar bloc, anyone? Does not matter that it was a weak one, it was still half the map, allied.

Offline Noctivagant

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 470
  • Infamy: 162
  • cRPG Player
  • I solve practical problems
    • View Profile
    • I never drank a six pack of warm beer
  • Faction: Mercenaries
Re: A different strategus and stuff
« Reply #28 on: December 09, 2012, 02:16:41 pm »
0
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline RamsesXXIIX

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 252
  • Infamy: 65
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Yes, I prey on the weak.
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Fallen
  • Game nicks: Fallen_Ramses
Re: A different strategus and stuff
« Reply #29 on: December 09, 2012, 02:21:57 pm »
+2
Teeth got it right, this is all aimed towards eliminating the allying meta-game. We can, of course, put on nostalgia glasses and think that Strat1 was so cool because of some mentality or whatever, but, imo, it was simply because everyone was new to it and still discovering the ways to win at it.

Also, there was a mega-alliance in strat1, from the start. Templar bloc, anyone? Does not matter that it was a weak one, it was still half the map, allied.

There is a big difference between a strong mega-alliance and a weak mega-alliance. UIF was everywhere, and had a saying or doing on the whole map. Templars? Not so much. Whats more important though, is that the templar bloc did not consist of ~half the strategus players. So although it was big, it didn't have that many members relatively speaking. Which mattered a lot in terms of roster support.

I do agree that the nostalgia glasses of strat 1 are blinding people. However, I still support the general principle of a more diverse map, rather than two blocks.