Author Topic: Evaluation: Bigger armies - higher cost?  (Read 3338 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Overdriven

  • Marshall
  • ********
  • Renown: 828
  • Infamy: 223
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Pawn
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Great Khans
  • Game nicks: GK_Overdriven
Re: Evaluation: Bigger armies - higher cost?
« Reply #30 on: September 07, 2011, 09:56:53 pm »
+1
Hmm not a fan of the idea. Whilst I like the concept and I've always loved the idea of moving loads of guys across a map to siege something, I don't think the concept would work. It would simply mean excessive micromanagement for the higher ups. Plus, people still need to grind gold/troops whilst the main army is on the offensive. This would be ok for larger clans because they'd easily be able to move 10 guys with 1k troops and still have many to do the grinding. For smaller clans it would be nigh impossible to keep a sustained offensive going.

Different clans can have their own structures. Hell there's nothing to stop the players grinding gold and troops to insist they play a bigger role and take more of a part. The factions that have trouble with this are the ones that insist on an enforced officer system (may be needed for bigger clans), but many clans let whoever wants to get involved do so. I don't think clans should be forced to play one way and organise things one way. Currently, people will always need to grind regardless of whether there are smaller armies or not, this will simply make managing clans that much harder.

I get the feeling a lot of players insisting that lower downs need a bigger role in strat come from clans where such a strict system is involved. Hell, I've often taken charge of GK's armies, I look after a fief, but even I understand that I should also spend lots of time grinding gold/troops. I simply have the time to sort out other people to centralise a place to filter them.

I personally prefer Plazek's solution to an economic one:

Surely different slower movement speeds or being able to be seen from further away if your army is bigger are both more interesting and more intelligent mechanics that encourage the very same thing, along with having strategic effects.

That makes a lot more sense from a balance point of view to me.

Hell if you really want to get crazy, I'd be interested in whether it would be possible to code certain features such as the ability to buy certain things to speed up movement of large armies. For instance investing in training for your troops on long marches, or buying pack horses in abundance rather than wagons, or the possibility of siege equipment being in an army slowing it down. The insistence that all armies move the same pace in the game really doesn't make much sense to me. Or perhaps give some kind of bonus to smaller armies, guerilla style combat for example. Small bands of troops could be hidden until right at the last moment. Whilst large bands can be seen roaming for miles around.

The economy is not always the best way to balance things. I see no reason why larger armies would have more upkeep per troop. They have to pay more over all anyway as a result of having more troops but the cost per individual troop should remain the same.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2011, 04:59:14 am by Overdriven »

Offline Erasmas

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 483
  • Infamy: 138
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Bishop A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • The crows had come
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Grey Order
  • Game nicks: Erasmas_the_Grey
Re: Evaluation: Bigger armies - higher cost?
« Reply #31 on: September 07, 2011, 10:10:31 pm »
0
Simply put, more gold grinders = more sustainability. Larger clans = larger footprint to work from and easier logistics.

That, obviously, is true (except for the logistics part - managing large clan is more difficult and more time consuming than a small one).

You have touched a very interesting subject. Our almighty chadz, with all his dislike for grinders, created two fantastic games for grinders - cRPG (level up, level up!) and Strategus (more troops, more gold, more eq, more fiefs!).  The grinding side of cRPG was limited already. Now the time has come for Strategus. 

As I understand it, the point of all most recent changes is to limit ability of the large clans to use whatever such clans can work out and grow until they reach natural opponent, which  is devastating for small clans and freelancers. To increase the power of such small clans and freelancers. Thus - enabling raid capabilities by dramatic change of wages for troop is field and in location (btw - it hits freelancers more than clans,a as the latter have the place to hide the troops). 

Removal of the cash from the system limits the ability to maintain troops and equip troops. For everyone. What will have to happen now is cutting down grinding side of the game. That can be done by sort of softcapping amounts of troops and gold. That can be achieved by creating sinks for money (wages and eq costs) and tickets (battles!) and by progressive increase of the costs of holding, moving, equipping etc. vast amounts of tickets and gold. That is why chadz is a "pow lover".

As I see it, the removal of the cash from the system is a shortcut, a temporary solution. If we were to start fresh after wipe out, the current map would look entirely different with new set of rules... with more clans present, I guess. 

The new idea (see OP) aims in limiting ability to move large amounts of troops. I also agree that Plazek's idea is better for getting that done. However, by splitting the moving troops armies are more vulnerable for attack and require greater co-ordination - and that means opportunity for small clans and freelancers, as well as and some job for players... in theory. In practice - more micromanagement by clan leaders and... nolife'ing (lol)!

The longer I think about it  - balancing this thing is a bitch.  There is a loooong way to introduce sensible economy (like producing, buying and selling stuff) to Strategus if we think about stuff like this.

PS. Idea for another sink for the gold: maintenance, or repair costs of the equipment held by the army, works similar way as the regular wages for troops, but is directly related to property, not troops.

ooops...
« Last Edit: September 08, 2011, 10:00:02 am by Erasmas »
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Panoply

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Renown: 113
  • Infamy: 10
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Aristeia, Panoply, Pistachio
Re: Evaluation: Bigger armies - higher cost?
« Reply #32 on: September 08, 2011, 03:35:39 am »
0
Eh, not a huge fan of the idea. It does make some sense though.

If you do decide to implement it, how about also gently scaling roster size to army size? That is a bigger army costs more, but you gain a slight edge in the number of mercenaries you can hire if you're battling a smaller army. There should be costs and benefits to both.

It would be cool if Strategus were more feudalistic though.

Offline Cicero

  • Duke
  • *******
  • Renown: 515
  • Infamy: 418
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Pawn
  • scourge of god
    • View Profile
  • Faction: BashiBazouks
  • Game nicks: BashiBazouks_Cicero
  • IRC nick: Cicero
Re: Evaluation: Bigger armies - higher cost?
« Reply #33 on: September 08, 2011, 03:37:49 am »
0
Just make something like command points or let faction leaders to move their members on map but members that u can move must gain experience from different IP at least each 3 days.So there wont be zombies that are not playing but getting troops.Its really impossible to find members that gonna play 24/7 strategus.We are trying our best but its getting really boring.

Really too many people already quit the game and these peasant wars... no need to comment.If you want to test something make these things a bit better for us so we can do something on map instead of earning money 24/7.People already started calculating like gingerpussy told me that 20k troops ( for taking a city ) can be ready in 9 months.Not really logical.We are trying our best but if you are not gonna test anything before u made them like flags: no offense mercs and chaos ; i joined those sieges ( mercs > dhirrim , chaos > telhrog castle ) and people were spawning inside? I mean how can u test something if noone can attack any city ? Maybe you can just combine strategus a bit more with cRPG ( like old time crpg gold gain/20 was best which i suprised chadz to made something like that).

This community is really trying his best to help you chadz.But really you are making this a bit harash:

At the moment , earning money from a city per hour near 40 gold.A faction that got 40 members which assume as all of them earning money. 40x40=1600 per hour 1600 x 24 = 39000 .Also think that they had 5 k army before gold wipe 39000 - 5000 = 34000 in 1 day. Normal items for 1 k army near 100k.But this is only gonna happen when all faction gonna mass earn gold.Think about splitting faction recruit/gold.

Also with this update you forced little clans to leave this game already.I just want to play strategus and today its impossible.Give us normal strategus and test other things till christmas otherwise i can just understand that u want people shut up before you gonna release new strategus.Strategus will be paused now so u cant even check any new things.

Actually if you want us to test things just give all factions some gold and troops so we can kill each other to test ?

I hope you will change somethings...

Offline RandomDude

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 431
  • Infamy: 43
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Knight
  • I play now! but I suck =(
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: RandomDude
  • IRC nick: RandomDude
Re: Evaluation: Bigger armies - higher cost?
« Reply #34 on: September 08, 2011, 03:45:51 am »
0
if you DO do that, give the option of multiple armies attacking a single target.(all being combined into 1 FINAL army with equip, etc)

Not worth it for the billion of battles. Don't increase management of players find ways to make it fun for everyone without making micromanagement heavy.

yeah i was just thinking of that

Offline Erasmas

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 483
  • Infamy: 138
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Bishop A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • The crows had come
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Grey Order
  • Game nicks: Erasmas_the_Grey
Re: Evaluation: Bigger armies - higher cost?
« Reply #35 on: September 08, 2011, 03:52:23 am »
0
I cannot agree with you more, Cicero. It is frustrating. But the point is chadz cannot simply give money to the factions, if he wants to get any sensible data on how the parameters should be set. He can, however, increase the earnings in locations a bit. Also, I believe it is going to get better over time, cause numbers of tkts that are maintainable will settle at certain level, and more money will show up on the "world market". But then - I still believe that new money sinks will appear...  aaa, there is one that is very important - battles, esp. with lowered loot, as it seems to be implemented.

Obviously the question is, how many guys will be patient enough to wait so long...

Down @ Cicero,: sorry man, its so late i have to think loudly :D Anyways, I still agree with you...
« Last Edit: September 08, 2011, 04:11:28 am by Erasmas »
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Cicero

  • Duke
  • *******
  • Renown: 515
  • Infamy: 418
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Pawn
  • scourge of god
    • View Profile
  • Faction: BashiBazouks
  • Game nicks: BashiBazouks_Cicero
  • IRC nick: Cicero
Re: Evaluation: Bigger armies - higher cost?
« Reply #36 on: September 08, 2011, 03:56:03 am »
0
Actually erasmas its really better than grinding 24/7 but i couldnt understand that u selected only that idea to comment cos it was the only nonserious idea which is the last option =)

Offline Sharky

  • Knight
  • ***
  • Renown: 44
  • Infamy: 10
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Legione Italica
  • Game nicks: LEGIO_Sharkyborn_Sharkatron Legio_Lollia_Paolina Legio_Sharkatrower Legio_SharkaNukes
Re: Evaluation: Bigger armies - higher cost?
« Reply #37 on: September 08, 2011, 04:05:35 am »
0
Really too many people already quit the game and these peasant wars... no need to comment.If you want to test something make these things a bit better for us so we can do something on map instead of earning money 24/7.People already started calculating like gingerpussy told me that 20k troops ( for taking a city ) can be ready in 9 months.Not really logical.We are trying our best but if you are not gonna test anything before u made them like flags: no offense mercs and chaos ; i joined those sieges ( mercs > dhirrim , chaos > telhrog castle ) and people were spawning inside? I mean how can u test something if noone can attack any city ? Maybe you can just combine strategus a bit more with cRPG ( like old time crpg gold gain/20 was best which i suprised chadz to made something like that).

This community is really trying his best to help you chadz.But really you are making this a bit harash:

At the moment , earning money from a city per hour near 40 gold.A faction that got 40 members which assume as all of them earning money. 40x40=1600 per hour 1600 x 24 = 39000 .Also think that they had 5 k army before gold wipe 39000 - 5000 = 34000 in 1 day. Normal items for 1 k army near 100k.But this is only gonna happen when all faction gonna mass earn gold.Think about splitting faction recruit/gold.
+1 we know it's an alphabetabeta we shouldn't play it etc. Still it's out since more then 1 year, at least give us the chance to equip proper armies so we can have fun while testing battles.

Offline Overdriven

  • Marshall
  • ********
  • Renown: 828
  • Infamy: 223
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Pawn
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Great Khans
  • Game nicks: GK_Overdriven
Re: Evaluation: Bigger armies - higher cost?
« Reply #38 on: September 08, 2011, 06:06:29 am »
0
I would just like to link this thread to post 19 in this thread:

http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,15250.msg216940.html#msg216940

Just to see some opinions on what people think as it is very much related to this.