cRPG

Strategus => Strategus General Discussion => Topic started by: [ptx] on November 20, 2012, 07:01:20 pm

Title: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: [ptx] on November 20, 2012, 07:01:20 pm

A summary of a certain IRC conversation some days ago:

What if...

• ..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
• ..all the actions in strat (movement, attacks, whatever else) were semi-turn based - as in, the whole thing moves forward 1 turn every 30 minutes or so and movement, for example, takes like 1-3 turns between tiles, depending on your speed
• ..there was integrated diplomacy in strat, trade agreements and treaties, all giving buffs (and debuffs), depending on territory control - this being enforced because of tile based territories, that would hurt factions, that would be at war in strat, whilst actually being at peace, for example. This could also be used to discourage massive powerblocks, perhaps, by giving debuffs, based on size of factions making peace or some such thing
• ..all trading was automated and not done by players, but rather just gave revenue, based on territory control and diplomatic treaties
• ..players would instead contribute their hard-earned ticks towards improving regions/tiles/fiefs and actually pushing for territory
• ..there were pretty colours :D
• ..there were more ways to actively expend your strat ticks towards different causes
• ..there were more unique battle locations with their own maps and more meaningful field battles

?

(click to show/hide)

[12:32] <Andswaru> its to time consuming (24hrs) because of bandits etc on different time zones.
[12:36] <jacko> auto caravans would be awesome
[12:36] <Vibe> hm basically yeah
[12:36] <jacko> sending out NPC caravans
[12:36] <Vibe> perhaps make all the boring shit more Ai/NPC dependant
[12:36] <Vibe> like one guy controling his own troops
[12:36] <Vibe> to do crap
[12:37] <Vibe> so you're not limited to one action at a time
[12:37] <Vibe> like send 50 troops to do trades
[12:37] <Vibe> then 150 to battle
[12:37] <jacko> depending on if you're a fief owner or not
[12:37] <jacko> castle = ai raiders, towns = x caravans
[12:38] <[ptx]> how about
[12:38] <Vibe> and a PREMIUM FEATURE, 5 action at a time allowed + 50% troop bonus per strat tick only 14.99$/month
[12:38] <jacko> :D
[12:38] <[ptx]> make strat map somewhat tile based
[12:38] == Ipsum [[email protected]] has joined #mount&blade-crpg
[12:38] <jacko> heh yea
[12:38] <jacko> it's pixel based at the moment
[12:38] <[ptx]> yeah, like, you get hexagon tiles or something
[12:38] <[ptx]> or octagon
[12:38] <[ptx]> it takes time to move from one tile to another
[12:39] <[ptx]> you can attack whoever is in your tile, enter the fief in it, etc
[12:39] <[ptx]> wouldnt really lose out on much, except for a lot of micromanagement
[12:40] <[ptx]> would make it more visually appealing
[12:40] <[ptx]> perhaps more strategic as well
[12:40] <[ptx]> territory control meaning more
[12:40] <Vibe> hm yeah
[12:40] <Vibe> what if it wasnt all fief based
[12:40] <[ptx]> region based
[12:40] <Vibe> each hexa having its own attributes
[12:41] <[ptx]> yeah
[12:41] <Vibe> like providing those and these crafts/goods
[12:41] <[ptx]> okay, maybe not hexa, but like in paradox strategy games
[12:41] <[ptx]> where you get regions
[12:41] <Vibe> yeah
[12:41] == adre [[email protected]] has joined #mount&blade-crpg
[12:41] <[ptx]> each region has its own attributes, might have a fief or not
[12:42] <Vibe> depends on how big those regions would be
[12:42] <[ptx]> hell, maybe even give regions a multi-tier battles
[12:42] <[ptx]> like
[12:42] <[ptx]> it is controlled by faction A
[12:42] <[ptx]> faction B attacks it
[12:42] <[ptx]> first has to defeat faction As armies in the region
[12:42] <[ptx]> then can attack the fief
[12:43] <[ptx]> unless the faction A army is not in the fief
[12:43] <[ptx]> or something like that?
[12:43] <[ptx]> anyhow
[12:44] <[ptx]> regions/tiles would be an improvement, imho
[12:44] <Andswaru> tiles would be pro
[12:44] <Andswaru> would even solve this damn bash attack 500 times and watch the guy still escape problem
[12:44] <[ptx]> yeah
[12:45] <[ptx]> well
[12:45] <[ptx]> i absolutely hate the pixel hunting mechanics of now
[12:45] <Vibe> what is it hard to attack people like this?
[12:45] <[ptx]> having stuff be in regions would clean up strat a ton
[12:45] <Vibe> never tried
[12:45] <Vibe> so i dunno
[12:45] <[ptx]> theres a lot of pixel micromanagement right now
[12:45] <[ptx]> which is annoying
[12:46] <[ptx]> it isnt hard to attack someone, you just click them and press attack
[12:46] <[ptx]> at which point your char moves on top of target
[12:46] <[ptx]> but still, its all down to pixels
[12:47] <[ptx]> having chars disappear into fiefs, 1 pixel short of being attacked, etc
[12:47] <[ptx]> regardless, everyone loves tiles/regions
[12:53] <Vibe> but
[12:53] <Vibe> that would limit the movement a bit
[12:53] <Vibe> you wouldn't be able to dodge as much
[12:54] <Vibe> if the tiles were big
[12:54] <Vibe> and especially if it's regions only
[13:12] == Mylet|away has changed nick to Mylet
[13:31] <[ptx]> yeah
[13:31] <[ptx]> thats the point
[13:32] <[ptx]> fuck "dodging", aka stare at a page and refresh every 5 minutes for an hour or more
[13:33] == Barracuda [[email protected]] has quit [Ping timeout]
[13:39] <jacko> it's a map, representing armies and cities
[13:39] <jacko> no need for dodging
[13:39] <jacko> bring forth the squares!
[13:42] <@chadz> i'm surprised "dodging" still works
[13:42] <[ptx]> well, not so much dodging
[13:42] <@chadz> you should be able to attack anyone instantly that is within 5 minutes reach
[13:42] <[ptx]> as having "escort" armies
[13:43] <[ptx]> with multiple people frantically typing/shouting in TS and staring at pixels
[13:44] <@chadz> lol
[13:44] <[ptx]> anyhow
[13:44] <[ptx]> pixel staring sucks ;(
[13:44] <@chadz> well, i'm interested in tiles, but probably not for this version
[13:44] <[ptx]> yay
[13:44] <@chadz> i'll leave the rest up to your imagination
[13:44] <Cordella> pls don turn it into a board game
[13:44] <jacko> it already is..?
[13:44] <Cordella> next we'll have to roll dice to determine wars
[13:45] <@chadz> maybe a more abstract ruleset (=boardgame) could be nice for strat
[13:46] <@chadz> like "you can only attack other towns when you start in a town"
[13:46] <jacko> rules that make sense, sure
[13:46] <jacko> it's all about visualizing that makes sense
[13:46] <jacko> think civ
[13:46] <@chadz> maybe also only one action per hour
[13:46] <@chadz> as in, setting moves, and every hour is a tick
[13:46] <jacko> civ / total war campaign map
[13:46] <jacko> but real time
[13:47] <@chadz> well, for all scared shitless now, i'm just thinking out loud here
[13:47] <@Mylet> I think it's a nice idea
[13:47] <[ptx]> [13:46] <@chadz> maybe also only one action per hour
[13:47] <[ptx]> :o
[13:48] <[ptx]> sounds... interesting
[13:48] <jacko> also, ai stuff
[13:48] <[ptx]> having strat stuff happen on an hourly basis or so, rather than realtime
[13:48] <[ptx]> or 30 mins
[13:48] <jacko> once initiated you can't really control them
[13:48] <jacko> like caravan, raiding parties
[13:49] <jacko> but you know this :)
[13:49] <@chadz> i think realtime doesn't really work for mmo strategy
[13:49] <@chadz> i always thought it would
[13:49] <@chadz> but it just makes stuff more complicated
[13:49] <@chadz> so why not make it semi turn based
[13:50] <[ptx]> agree totally
[13:50] <[ptx]> a semi-turn based with action queueing (cant spell lol) would work grand
[13:51] <[ptx]> probably biggest issue would be having different movement speeds in that
[13:51] <[ptx]> but then again you could have different speed units, like, fast moving character = moves set distance in X turns, slow character moves said distance in 2,5x turns
[13:51] <[ptx]> or so
[13:52] <@chadz> yeah, different movement speeds probably wouldnt work
[13:52] <@chadz> unless you make it 1/2/3 turns per tile
[13:52] <[ptx]> yeah
[13:52] <[ptx]> would also stop giving people headaches with movement speeds
[13:52] <[ptx]> spreadsheets FTL
[13:54] <@chadz> actually, that could work
[13:54] <@chadz> ideal condition is 1 move per tile
[13:54] <@chadz> forest gives +1 penalty
[13:54] <@chadz> mountain +4
[13:54] <@chadz> eg
[13:54] <jacko> yeah
[13:54] <jacko> just make it simple
[13:54] <@chadz> and your equipment can modify +x, or *x
[13:55] <jacko> also, visual borders around towns
[13:55] <jacko> = faction color
[14:01] <Vibe> think it could work well with turns and tiles
[14:01] <Vibe> more thinking and less staring at tiles
[14:01] <Vibe> i mean pixels
[14:02] <jacko> yup
[14:02] <jacko> as long as it isn't just tiles slapped over the current system
[14:02] <Vibe> well makes regions out of the tiles
[14:02] <Vibe> and have regions have attributes
[14:03] <jacko> yup
[14:03] <Vibe> so it isn't only about fiefs anymore
[14:03] <Vibe> might also promote open field battles more
[14:03] <jacko> unique battle locations for region control
[14:03] <jacko> :O
[14:05] <Vibe> shit
[14:05] <Vibe> region connections and tied benefits
[14:05] <Vibe> so cutting off someones land and separating it
[14:05] <Vibe> would hurt
[14:05] <Vibe> and influence
[14:06] <Vibe> kind of like Planetside 2 right now
[14:06] <Rosak> hmmm
[14:06] <jacko> connected, but should still give benefits unconnected as well
[14:07] <jacko> for bandits and small clans who don't own fiefs
[14:09] <[ptx]> ok, heres an idea
[14:09] <[ptx]> players dont run caravans, caravans are created from fiefs and travel between them automatically
[14:10] <[ptx]> created at a cost
[14:10] <jacko> that's planned, somewhere in the future i believe
[14:10] <[ptx]> players, instead, spend their ticks
[14:10] <Vibe> that would be great
[14:10] <[ptx]> in other things
[14:10] <[ptx]> in regions
[14:10] <[ptx]> maybe, replacing PP
[14:11] <[ptx]> >
[14:11] <[ptx]> ?
[14:11] <[ptx]> or some such thing
[14:11] <jacko> yup
[14:11] <[ptx]> as in, players spend their ticks improving their factions fiefs
[14:11] <[ptx]> or neutral players spend their ticks on other things
[14:12] <[ptx]> troop recruitment being an additional tick sink
[14:12] <[ptx]> also
[14:12] <[ptx]> built in diplomacy
[14:12] <jacko> god yes
[14:13] <[ptx]> the automatic caravans dont travel to friendly fiefs, if you havent actually made an in-strat trade agreement
[14:13] <jacko> it's a game, enforce game rules
[14:13] <[ptx]> and such built in diplomatic agreements can have some effects
[14:14] <[ptx]> maybe even something to make people not carebear as much
[14:14] <jacko> declaring war takes x turns
[14:14] <jacko> moves everyone out of the territory
[14:14] <jacko> etc
[14:14] <[ptx]> or perhaps
[14:14] <jacko> peace make factions unable to attack each other for x turns
[14:14] == Para [[email protected]] has quit [Ping timeout]
[14:15] <@Mylet> I think that would be a bit too restricting
[14:15] <[ptx]> being at war/neutral with a faction makes you pay higher upkeep for troops whilst in their territory
[14:15] <jacko> you can still hire mercs to attack
[14:15] <[ptx]> but peace has some other costs
[14:16] <jacko> don't see why it would restrict anything, tbh
[14:16] <[ptx]> so, you cant have factions pretending to be neutral, without gimping themselves
[14:17] <[ptx]> perhaps some sort of debuff, relative to the size of the factions making their peace agreement
[14:17] <jacko> there should still be a viable way to merc for other factions
[14:17] <[ptx]> so, small factions can do peace with each other, but big ones will suffer
[14:17] <jacko> without declaring
[14:17] <[ptx]> none of the in-strat diplomacy can really work without regions/tiles
[14:18] <[ptx]> or at least as far as i can ee
[14:19] <jacko> well, i think a we would benefit from a diplomacy system
[14:19] <jacko> right now people make up their own rules about it
[14:20] <[ptx]> yeah, its pretty lame lol
[14:20] <jacko> but there is no way to enforce it
[14:20] <jacko> only way is to shit talk on the fourms :P
[14:20] <[ptx]> especially considering how most people have no idea how proper diplomacy should go
[14:21] <[ptx]> and then you have people making "truces" with no term, that can basically be broken within 5 minutes of signing
[14:21] <[ptx]> or never
[14:21] <[ptx]> go figure
[14:21] <jacko> yeah that's the problem
[14:22] <jacko> no consequences
[14:22] <jacko> way way back i used to play utopia
[14:22] <jacko> which is a text based strategy game ish
[14:23] <jacko> there you had turns, attacking, declaring etc
[14:23] <jacko> and it worked really well
[14:35] <Fips> awwww yes, playing cRPG on my TV
[14:36] <Rosak> jacko: the player community was probably smarter
[14:39] <Vibe> so
[14:39] <Vibe> who's going to sum all this up in a nice looking post
[14:40] <[ptx]> you will
[14:40] <[ptx]> a post for what, anyway
[14:41] <[ptx]> its all just daydreaming
[14:41] <Vibe> for all this cool suggestions about strat
[14:41] <[ptx]> right now anyway
[14:41] <Vibe> still
[14:41] <Vibe> also it would be great renown for you guys
[14:41] <Vibe> you know you want it
[14:41] <[ptx]> awww
[14:41] <[ptx]> >_<
[14:42] <[ptx]> i posted a photo of my uberkool cat in mewos thread, didnt get a single plus
[14:42] <[ptx]> i am hurt
[14:42] <Vibe> lol
[14:44] == Cyclopsided_ [[email protected]] has joined #mount&blade-crpg
[14:44] * karasu pokes Mylet's eyes out with a fork
[14:45] <[ptx]> if i went through the trouble of summing all this up and ended up with less than +30, id be hurt too much
[14:45] <[ptx]> i cant take it anymore :(

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: Elindor on November 20, 2012, 07:03:48 pm

Quote from: [ptx] on November 20, 2012, 07:01:20 pm

• ..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
• ..there was integrated diplomacy in strat, trade agreements and treaties, all giving buffs (and debuffs), depending on territory control - this being enforced because of tile based territories, that would hurt factions, that would be at war in strat, whilst actually being at peace, for example. This could also be used to discourage massive powerblocks, perhaps, by giving debuffs, based on size of factions making peace or some such thing
• ..players would instead contribute their hard-earned ticks towards improving regions/tiles/fiefs and actually pushing for territory
• ..there were more unique battle locations with their own maps and more meaningful field battles

These especially.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: KingBread on November 20, 2012, 07:07:32 pm

chadz do it now pls

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: Bjarky on November 20, 2012, 08:18:30 pm

+1

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on November 20, 2012, 08:31:56 pm

Looks like some great ideas for strat, good luck getting Harald or any dev's time to code, test and implement this...

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: Sandersson Jankins on November 20, 2012, 10:39:22 pm

This would be the coolest damn thing.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: BASNAK on November 20, 2012, 10:51:31 pm

Yes. But only if it would allow roleplaying the Cold War in strat, like we're doing now, with powerblocks and shit.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: Lannistark on November 20, 2012, 11:14:12 pm

This is pure demagogy. While all the features sound awesome and hilarious, implementing them is not at all as trivial.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: [ptx] on November 20, 2012, 11:28:35 pm

Demagogy is not the word you are looking for...

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: [ptx] on November 22, 2012, 02:52:20 pm

Quote from: [ptx] on November 20, 2012, 07:01:20 pm

[14:45] <[ptx]> if i went through the trouble of summing all this up and ended up with less than +30, id be hurt too much
[14:45] <[ptx]> i cant take it anymore :(

I knew this would happen :cry:

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: Vibe on November 22, 2012, 02:59:15 pm

+1 omg so good

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: Bjord on November 22, 2012, 03:20:45 pm

Nice.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: Elmokki on November 22, 2012, 07:32:36 pm

All trade done by npcs would be awesome. You could probably make automated battles against the npcs and make raiding them trivial with even remotely decent army and yet keep the loot somewhat worthwhile. However, anyone owning a fief would want to not let anyone raid anything coming their way or from their fief since trade = commerence.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: Butan on November 22, 2012, 08:17:39 pm

some good ideas that can be done easily :D

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: KaMiKaZe_JoE on November 23, 2012, 02:29:32 am

Yes to everything. The diplomacy scares me, though. Takes away some of the freedom imo.

So what if there are no official consequences if you break a trade agreement or something? You'll piss off your partner, and they'll never talk to you again, or something.

PLEASE GOD make npc's take care of trade. It's fucking boring shit atm.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: Aderyn on November 23, 2012, 08:36:30 am

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. =)

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: Lepintoi on December 03, 2012, 08:26:34 am

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.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: Garem on December 04, 2012, 02:29:22 pm

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.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: Knute on December 07, 2012, 10:39:50 pm

Quote from: [ptx] on November 20, 2012, 07:01:20 pm

..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  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw3Micmkfr8&t=3m39s)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)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

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.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: Teeth on December 09, 2012, 12:10:28 pm

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.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: RamsesXXIIX on December 09, 2012, 12:50:41 pm

(click to show/hide)

Quote from: Teeth on December 09, 2012, 12:10:28 pm

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.

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?

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: Zlisch_The_Butcher on December 09, 2012, 12:53:58 pm

Quote from: RamsesXXIIX on December 09, 2012, 12:50:41 pm

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.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: RamsesXXIIX on December 09, 2012, 12:57:28 pm

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.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: Molly on December 09, 2012, 01:02:20 pm

You got me with pretty. colours!

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: Teeth on December 09, 2012, 01:23:05 pm

Quote from: RamsesXXIIX on December 09, 2012, 12:50:41 pm

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.

Quote from: RamsesXXIIX on December 09, 2012, 12:50:41 pm

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.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: BASNAK on December 09, 2012, 01:44:40 pm

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.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: RamsesXXIIX on December 09, 2012, 01:52:33 pm

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)

Heh, more things I think you should remember. :) Its fair enough you assume these things, given you have no chance of knowing.

1.
Although I have been the leader of the Fallen Brigade in the past, I've been inactive for 4 months and will be for an additional 1,5 months. All the important decisions for the Fallen in strat are no longer being made by me, but by a collection of people from the Coalition. However, I have raised some questions in the coalition as to what comes after UIF. One of the problems I frequently face is that, when it comes to strat, I'm an ideologist(You are possibly too). I want to have some kind of ideological standing, but most people don't really care about ideology in an internet game like strategus. Many are simply practical people, trying to keep their faction running, making battles and maintaining a good reputation.

I remember one particular situation in strat 3: We were in a meeting of the many clans trying to form an alliance against the UIF (Which Kinngrimm conveniently backstabbed and killed) and I tried to ask all these fine leader the question: What is our goal? What is our dream, our utopia, so to speak. My answer:

No one knew, because no one really cared at this point. Well, now it does matter, as the UIF is actually on the verge of defeat, and the anti-UIF factions have to ask themselves "What now?" I doubt any of them expected UIF to massively quit, not to say even lose. To summarize, you and I think in different patterns than the current decision makers. Or so I think :)

2.
It also remains a big question if it is really prudent to simply split of completely from each other. There are so may unanswered questions associated with this, that its hard to say if its gonna happen. I might be easy for an outsider to see things like "anti-UIF split up -> many factions -> lots of fun or anti-UIF don't split up -> the new UIF" but in reality there are many, many more aspects of this.
    To name some, lets not forget the power of tradition. These people have been working together for a very long time, some more 2 years. Even if break-ups will occur, I doubt everybody will completely break off from everybody. At least I feel confident Fallen and HRE will stick together, no matter what.
    Another issue is the amount of players nowadays. In strat 1, there was plenty of people on the rosters from all sorts of places and clans, and it wasn't necessary to recruit in this TS or that TS. Nowadays, its absolutely necessary to recruit people from TS's to get a full roster. The few people who've tried to be independent have almost exclusively argumented that the lack of roster support was the reason they couldn't succeed. My point is, strategus needs a substantial population to be able for clans to break away from each other. And this is just a few of the unanswered questions.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: [ptx] on December 09, 2012, 02:05:08 pm

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.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: Noctivagant on December 09, 2012, 02:16:41 pm

Quote from: Thomek on June 08, 2011, 03:49:34 pm

(click to show/hide)

Alright so heres the idea: (If some dev can come out and tell this is faaar out of what you have in mind, just let us know ;-)

In stead of having a completely open map where anyone can run where they want, I wanted to introduce the idea of controlling territory.. So I've stolen this idea from Panzer general..

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

That way owning a city or a fort would actually mean something else than a production house, being able to decide what factions have free access in their territory i.ex. Some forts would have much more value if they have a strategic position.. and others again might gain value only in combination with other forts, creating a wall. Of course, factionless armies and players would not suffer from these constraints.

It should of course also not stop movement completely, only cut movement speed in half or so.

Such a system also opens up a whole lot of other opportunities, such as telling an AI caravan what route to take to the target. Owning some forts in the center of the map would contain huge risks, but you would also be able to extort taxes and offer protection to factions wiling to pay :-D

One faction could try to wall off a part of the map, controlling the enemy's ability to strike deep inside their territory.. Such an effort would, however be very risky, since not many other factions would like such a thing to happen freely.

Also, the grid i made on the map obviously have to big "masks", and a city or fort should not control such a large area. Of course the villages/forts cities should be adjusted to fit such a grid as well, so it makes more sense.

Also, the whole game of strategus would become far far more complex, and not just a game of having many players and many friends. In addition to the whole economical aspect, the strategic aspect would be of major importance. A location would have value in itself. A small guild in a very good location with an easily defendable fort, could buy itself security, cash, weapons or other favours based on giving access alone..

Perhaps the whole map should be redesigned by some genius, and perhaps every reset should contain a new map for us..

Just an idea..

(Also the green line there is just there to show that you could block off movement in mountain ranges, rivers, ocean etc..)

version with smaller hexes

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Map showing visibility and ZoC

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

List of ideas on how to use the hexes:

1. Terrain types gives different movement bonuses and penalties.. Stacking with zone of control, thus a fort in a forest slows down an enemy much more
2. Terrain types can produce things.. Mountains can produce coal or minerals, wheat fields produce bread or cattle (food) Sea produce fish, like mentioned above..
3. You could give armies bonuses for surrounding an enemy.. Encirclement bonuses, give tactical advantage somehow. (Free tickets?)
4. Taxation of fiefs in your Zone of Control
5. Taxation of passing caravans
6. Programming advantages. ? (Dunno how it should be done, using the existing code to calculate what hex someone is in mathematically, or do a test against a matrix, what the hell, i dunno shit about programming :-D
7. Road building..
8. Contested Zones.. :-) Basically walking through no-mans land.. perhaps stuff that happens in no-mans land will not be recorded in any way by players, leading to my next point.
9. Information Gathering of passing players, armies and caravans.
10. Building of structures.
11. Pillaging of structures.
12. Visibility range. Let's say you build a spy-tower, giving you information about surrounding hexes and what players are doing there..
13. Easier coding of what terrain a player might expect if battling in a spesific hex. Next time a battle is there, the exact same terrain would appear, encouraging players to scout terrain and store information about it, so they can plan their next battle.. People could sell maps of areas to each other!
14. Fog of War. No-one will know how big, or how the world map looks like.. Everyone just know their little piece, making world-map and screenshot trading, faking of screenshots (!) etc it's own business! (Again encouraging spy-clans and spy-factions, delivering up-to date information about factions.. Bribing members etc etc.. hehe.
15.. Hidden movement. If you only travel with 1 soldier army, no-one can detect you..
16. Turn based movement: (Suggested by PhantomZero)
17. Taxable hexes (Suggested by Sir Henry)
18.  "I just want old strategus back" (Suggested by TheDashingRogue)
19. Armys under 20 ppl shoud be hidden.(Suggested by Gingerpussy)
20. Tydeus suggested implementing a Morale bonus (+1!) consisting of boosting stats to players controlling surrounding hexes.
21. Artillery from PG would be cool somehow.. But how exactly could it work? How could adjacent hexes defend an adjacent hex? Or attack PAST another hex?
22. Electro suggested having squares within squared.. didnt quite understand but see here:  http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,7804.msg120581.html#msg120581 (http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,7804.msg120581.html#msg120581)
23. Monsterbrum was contemplating economical aspects:
"I'm allready thinking abaut the cool economical aspects that could be added this way
-Every ticket would need an spesific amaunt of suplies.
-spesific hexes grow spesific "suplies", like: hexes in green (grassy) lands are the only hexes that would grow wheath.
-than an faction needs more food, the faction is realy strong it declears war with another faction, wich isnt strong but has good land for growing wheath, than when the defenders pull back they burn the fields, so the enemy starves. Think abaut the hunderd years war, the french did it, napoleons invasion in russia etc..
-an harvest fails, but an faction was so smart to smart to save a bunch of it and thusford has a lot of power cause of the saved suplies they have.

I like putting in an mixtiure of strategic things like defending passes and stuff connected to economical things."
24. Building and destroying improvements. (Adding a cost of war.. and perhaps interesting strategies. Scorched Earth anyone? Perhaps a faction could self-destruct its own improvements if it doesn't feel it has a chance of getting it back in the near future. And perhaps armies in recently scorched hexes become more vulnerable to supply-lines)
25. Joseph suggested I become a dev. I'm sorry I'm almost never at irc, don't have the time etc.. But I do care about games. This game especially! But it soo much easier philosophizing loosely without having to actually develop anything, let alone balance it. This list is more of a pool of ideas, then the devs can choose and pick what they like. (Thats why you too should bring in ideas! You never know, because even a the crappiest idea can have some aspect that might be interesting in their minds.)
26. SUPPLY LINES Oh how I would love to see it done.. It would create a very deep perspective to the gameplay..
27. The hex idea goes hand in hand with Noctivagants idea of sea battles. A hex would provide an actual area of sea worth controlling and fighting for. For fish, or for travel.
28. Noctis superb map of the last status in strategus, Hexadecimally done!:

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Quote from: Noctivagant on June 23, 2011, 12:38:25 pm

(click to show/hide)

This map is designed to help players and factions to understand Strategus faction borders. Faction borders are reviewed to be more accurate. Old maps were showing some factions larger than they are due filling unnecessary landfill.

The map of Calradia divided into hexagonal cells. Players can view or hide factions on the map or edit their borders. Map shows the last borders of Strategus. Faction leaders can note me on cRPG forum for updates or errors.

MBrepository download link : http://www.mbrepository.com/file.php?id=2982

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Map with the current borders

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Hide faction option (hide layer in Photoshop)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Viewing single faction (hide all except selected layer alt+click visibility option)

Thanks to Thomek for bringing that idea to attention
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,7804.0.html

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: RamsesXXIIX on December 09, 2012, 02:21:57 pm

Quote from: [ptx] on December 09, 2012, 02:05:08 pm

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.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: Latvian on December 09, 2012, 04:03:13 pm

i was wondering what happened to empire?  they suddenly give away fiefs fir that green faction lead by chase and corsair.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: Teeth on December 09, 2012, 06:08:06 pm

Quote from: Latvian_Knight on December 09, 2012, 04:03:13 pm

i was wondering what happened to empire?  they suddenly give away fiefs fir that green faction lead by chase and corsair.

It is in fact lead by bagge. Bagge is a sneaky fucker who talked a lot of us into joining some chill faction with a lot of randomers, turns out it is pretty much Byzantium playing Strategus now. Bagge is being crazy and is ordering everyone around, I don't know how he manages to do all that, but so far he seems to be doing a good job.

I swear next morning I wake up bagge talked me into walking the streets with him being my pimp. As far as The Empire goes, they are quitting Strat as well and they handed over a part of their fiefs to us. Without a doubt due to bagge smoothtalking them.

Title: Re: A different strategus and stuff
Post by: bagge on December 09, 2012, 06:57:51 pm

Hehe 8-)