Website warriors vs actually c-rpg players

[Digglez]

I thought you couldnt make an account/character without a cd key? Personally I doubt most goons are dedicated to the goon cause enough to spend $20(?) on a game just becuase theres a thread in the SA forums. I know it wasn't  why i started playing crpg. And that likely applies to just about anyone, i know i cant walk up to someone and go "Hey, you should spend money on this and give me shit even if you dont like the game".

First Rule of Fighting the Swarm:  do not underestimate the swarm

it may be $20 from Steam at this very moment, but I'm sure they have other outlets to get valid keys.  I highly doubt they pay more than $5 at the very most per cd-key

[Blondin]

The problem is not who play on site or in game, the problem is what ever faction have the most members will pwn other small faction.
There is no limit or upkeep for big factions, there is no limit in fief owning except number of members.
chadz could find a way to make big faction to pay more than small one.
I guess new strat will be more complex as you will need food to upkeep troops, meaning line of supply, meaning harder upkeep when you are far from food production.

[Braeden]

There was a system to stop giant groups from steamrolling planned, but Growl successfully fought it off, right before the Templar were steamrolled by a giant group.

Also, don't force people to play c-RPG to play strategus.  Thats just silly.  Strategus is the point, cRPG is just something to do when you are bored (and a training simulator, I suppose).

[Wookimonsta]

god no, then we will be forced by clan leaders to constantly play crpg to grind troops for strategus

[Overdriven]

Make alts give strat gold would help. The one major thing that puts a lot of people off playing alts and therefore extending crpg general play. Kinda annoying.

[Tomas]

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.

[Peasant_Woman]

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.

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.

[Tomas]

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

[RamsesXXIIX]

+1 Tomas, i really like that idea. So much i think you should create your own thread about it

The things about battle commanders and allies might be a little too messy though, maybe simply have it that when you engage in battle, you have your limits removed so you can get reinforced. Would be easier.

It does change the game quite alot if implemented. Right now, you can as a clan sustain as many troops as you can upkeep, which is an excruciating high number of troops. With a lower max amount of troops, you can't sit in fiefs and wait and gather forces forever - You won't gain anything after a relatively brief while.

It would thereby make war more profitable, and so give more action in strategus. It would enforce more members to play actively in strategus (you can do it now, its just more effective to have a few people managing it).

Awesome stuff.

[Gheritarish le Loki]

Yeah +1 Tomas.

I remember a thread where this idea was point out (i guess it was in old forum), only way for reinforcement was to engage in the battle with your troops+gold (if it's a defeat all grouped char will be thrown in random place), and there was a proposal about the fact you could engage with cRPG gears (for the commander only), and as you said that could give real mercenaries band (randommer will have a real interest in gold and troops, not only to sold them).

But the main idea was that, troops limit by character, to have a big army you must group with other chars near you.

[Tomas]

I've been thinking about this some more and have come up with a slight variation on what I suggested before.

1) All characters are initially limited to 100 troops.
2) Fief owners then get a bonus to the number of troops they can hold.  Fief Population caps will need to be changed aswell though so here's some suggested numbers
Village - Pop: 500 - Troop Bonus: 100
Castle - Pop: 2000 - Troop Bonus: 500
Town - Pop: 10000 - Troop Bonus: 500
These numbers are picked to try and make Castles the most valuable for troops numbers (since they are rubbish for recruiting and working compared to villages and towns repectively), whilst also ensuring that if someone ever manages to take a town, they don't then get a huge troop advantage.  They are certainly open to change though, since i'm not taking army upkeep costs, or faction gold production potentials, into account when writing this.
3) Troops cannot be stationed within fiefs, however the troops of any faction member within one of their own faction's fiefs will be added to the defending army (unless they retreat). 
4) Characters from 3rd parties can choose to join whichever side of any battle they want, so long as they are within range.  The mechanism I described 3 posts ago would be used in this situation for Battle management.

Now for the variation

5) Each clan gets to determine its own internal hierachy by placing every member of the faction under somebody elses command.  You can pick whatever setup you want from placing everybody directly under the faction leader, to a higly complicated pyramid system with lots of ranks.  Its entirely up to each faction how it is done.
6) Each faction member then gets to decide what percentage of their followers' troops troops they want to command themselves.  Default settings should useable, with tick boxes to override the defaults for individuals.   These troops then get taken away from the followers' max troop allowances, and added to the commanders allowance.  If the troops already exist then they will be removed from one army and added to the other after a period of time according to the distance between the 2 characters.

Here's some examples as I realise I'm not the best at explaining 

Example 1 (a simple version)

                         - Captain1 - 5 other followers
Faction Leader <
                         - Captain2 - 5 other followers

- The faction Leader and both Captains all use a figure of 20% as their default with no exceptions
- This leads to the following troops allowances
            Captain1 & 2's followers - 80 troops each (100 - 20 to their captain)
            Captains1 & 2 - 160 troops each (100 + 100 in total from followers - 40 to the leader)
            Leader - 180 troops (100 + 40 from each Captain)
            Total troops - 1300 from 13 people

Example 2 (a more complicated example)

                         - Captain - 5 other characters
Faction Leader <
                         - 6 other characters

- Captain 1 decides he wants 100% of his followers' troops
- The Faction Leader decides he wants 50% of his follwers' troops and 0% of the Captain's troops
- This results in the following troop numbers
            Captain's Followers - 0 troops each (100 - 100 to the Captain)
            Captain - 600 troops (100 + 500 in total from followers - 0 to the leader)
            Leader's other followers - 50 troops each (100 - 50 to the leader)
            Faction Leader - 400 troops (100 + 300 troops in total from followers + 0 troops from Captain)
            Total Troops - 1300 from 13 people

EDIT: If negative percentages are also useable then faction leaders will be able to pass troops back down the line to specific individuals.  This will increase each factions freedom over their setup even further.

7)  If a faction member is inactive for 10 days then any troops they have given to their commander will be transferred back to them and the character will be frozen until they return.  During this time their troops will not be added to the defending garrison of any town they are in, and they will also not be able to earn gold.

As you can see from the examples, this system allows almost complete flexibility when deciding how many troops each person gets without changing the overall number of troops within a faction.  This means we get a faction troop cap, without preventing factions from pooling resources and creating 1 massive army.  It also forces more tactical decisions when attacking, by making leaders decide how many troops to leave behind and who to leave them with.  Finally, it seriously simplifies the reinforcing system as instead of having to march within range and then transfer the troops, your commander just ups the percentage he wants you to send him and they march off on their own arriving after the appropriate amount of time.  Obviously troop transfers will still be possible and sometimes preferable as with the suggested method troops will be un-useable whilst in transit.  Also, if both the commander and follower are defeated whilst the troops are in transit, the troops should desert and be lost.  Attrition when transferring troops over long distances could also be used in this system.

           

[Dehitay]

I'm going to point out the obvious problem real fast so you can do some reconfiguring to your formula to correct it. Castles have populations of 4500. Towns have populations of 20000. Getting approximately 100 troops per clanmate means about 45 clanmates in march to even contemplate assaulting a castle and 200 for a town.

[Peasant_Woman]

I'm going to point out the obvious problem real fast so you can do some reconfiguring to your formula to correct it. Castles have populations of 4500. Towns have populations of 20000. Getting approximately 100 troops per clanmate means about 45 clanmates in march to even contemplate assaulting a castle and 200 for a town.

If every player could command 500 troops under them at once it would be only 40 clan members to equal a towns tickets, combined with the bonus' for owning villages and castles and being able to have an ally clans members join your 'army' with troops of thier own to contribute then it would be possible for smaller clans to participate in strategus too, if not in owning fiefs, in being mercenaries to lend a higher troop count to thier ally as well as actually fighting the battles.

[Tomas]

I'm going to point out the obvious problem real fast so you can do some reconfiguring to your formula to correct it. Castles have populations of 4500. Towns have populations of 20000. Getting approximately 100 troops per clanmate means about 45 clanmates in march to even contemplate assaulting a castle and 200 for a town.

I suggested alternative populations under part 2 that roughly halve the size of castles and towns.  100 clan mates to take a town is still a lot I know, but given the size of some of the alliances we are seeing in Strat at the moment, I don't think it is too much.  Also, if you already own some castles and a few villages you can significantly decrease that number.  For instance, 2 castles and 5 villages is the equivalent of 15 clanmates.

[Blondin]

With this system, a random player could be hired as a merc by faction, adding is max number of troops to the faction max number troops.
It's interesting, that gives a role to random and a real mercenaries role to mercs companies.

Really interesting...