What is the aim of Strategus?

[Keshian]

I like the 150 troop formula thing making no upkeep for individuals.  It was around 100 in end of strat 2.0, not sure why dropped to 49.  At least 150 v. 150 is some kind of battle.  49 v 49 is like 2-3 spawns each side.  This would also favor the small independents that dont owna fief and may be running caravans or acting as bandits as the upkeep is pretty horrendous if you only make 1 gold at x2/x3.

Thats the other thing, why remove 1 gold for x1??  Things like that focused on more active clans than passive clans, which is what chadz wanted, right??

[Gristle]

I definitely agree that 30+ minutes of prep for 5 minutes of actual gameplay gets old fast.

Didn't necessarily want to neg rep your comment, but I can't undo it without giving you a positive review :x

You just have to hit the "-" again to make your vote neutral.

[Taser]

As it stands now I don't see a real concrete way of Strat being a persistent world where kingdoms rise and fall. It'd need changes if it was going that way. It's taking a while but strat will only be playable right now as a game that must be reset everytime a clan/alliance takes over the map. There's no real way to attack back once a clan/alliance takes over every territory. It will definitely take time in this version of strat though.

[chadz]

The problem with raising the limit from 49 to 100 or 150 is, in my eyes, that it doesn't fix the problem. How much do 100 troops cost right now per hour? It's not really expensive, it's just this psychological thing that people are not allowed to go over that limit unless there's a huge battle coming up.

Also, it would just mean that recruiting would take twice as long, which means sitting around in castles doing nothing. Maybe I'll bring back buying troops in fiefs, don't know.

Also, as to the OP, strategus will be rounds of about 5 months, give or take, depending on how long the round is still fun to play.

[Matey]

Also, as to the OP, strategus will be rounds of about 5 months, give or take, depending on how long the round is still fun to play.

when does this round start to be fun? 

[Slamz]

The problem with raising the limit from 49 to 100 or 150 is, in my eyes, that it doesn't fix the problem.

It fixes the problem we are talking about, which is that making real life arrangements to log into the game at a specific time in order to have a small battle just isn't worth it, yet the game mechanics encourage small battles.

I think game mechanics should encourage 150 vs 150 as the minimum.  We CAN do that now, but mechanics don't encourage it.

Time to recruit troops isn't a problem, in my opinion.  It's just the simple fact that battles with too few tickets in them is just not worth the real-life trouble.


An alternative could be this:

All battles MUST have a minimum of 150 troops per side (or 100... or whatever we decide is "worthwhile").
If you have less than 150 troops, you cannot initiate an attack.
If your enemy has less than 75 troops (half of the amount required to initiate an attack), they will automatically lose if you attack them.

You already have something like this in place, I think, to prevent 1 troop armies from wasting people's time, but frankly a 49 troop army is a waste of time too.  The minimum size needs to be raised to something worth the trouble.


Basically if I have to set my alarm to log into cRPG at 9:34pm to do a Strategus battle, I would like to know that it's going to last more than 4 minutes.  If I log in and the enemy has 49 tickets with 25 players, then, I feel I have had my time wasted.  I don't want to set my alarm clock just to log in for what amounts to one round of Battle.

[Tomas]

Also, as to the OP, strategus will be rounds of about 5 months, give or take, depending on how long the round is still fun to play.

So is it 5 months in order to find an actual winner/winning alliance?  Or 5 months in order to reach some sort of status quo where all fiefs are taken and we're just left with 1 or 2 dominant powers, with the other clans being knocked out?

Basically - please define who it needs to fun for

[Lepintoi]

If the round lasts 5 months the movement speed needs to be fixed.

[CrazyCracka420]

Well if 5 to 6 months is the aim for a strategus map then everything is way too slow.  I'd wager most of the towns will still be computer controlled in another 2 or 3 months.  And even if most were player controlled (which I doubt they will be at the rate we're going), there'd still be a lot of room for fighting to take over faction controlled castles and towns.

I like how Firefox's spell check tries to tell me that there'd isn't a word...

[Ufthak]

chadz, let's not forget you stopped strat 2 in the middle of a massive war. Granted there was so many bugs that strat... so very many bugs...

[Jarlek]

It fixes the problem we are talking about, which is that making real life arrangements to log into the game at a specific time in order to have a small battle just isn't worth it, yet the game mechanics encourage small battles.

I think game mechanics should encourage 150 vs 150 as the minimum.  We CAN do that now, but mechanics don't encourage it.

Time to recruit troops isn't a problem, in my opinion.  It's just the simple fact that battles with too few tickets in them is just not worth the real-life trouble.


An alternative could be this:

All battles MUST have a minimum of 150 troops per side (or 100... or whatever we decide is "worthwhile").
If you have less than 150 troops, you cannot initiate an attack.
If your enemy has less than 75 troops (half of the amount required to initiate an attack), they will automatically lose if you attack them.

You already have something like this in place, I think, to prevent 1 troop armies from wasting people's time, but frankly a 49 troop army is a waste of time too.  The minimum size needs to be raised to something worth the trouble.


Basically if I have to set my alarm to log into cRPG at 9:34pm to do a Strategus battle, I would like to know that it's going to last more than 4 minutes.  If I log in and the enemy has 49 tickets with 25 players, then, I feel I have had my time wasted.  I don't want to set my alarm clock just to log in for what amounts to one round of Battle.

You know. I've been playing around (nudge nudge) with this idea. Instead of making them small scale battles instant-win/loss, why not just quicken them? If the ammount of troops is less than X, then instead of the battle happen after 24 hours, it happens after 12/6/3 or even 1(!) hour! Would make for some interesting situations to happen...

[Lt_Anders]

Instead of that, make the RAID feature  happen 12 hours(instead of 24) and change the reinforcement limit. attackers can't reinforce a raid, defenders get 1-2 hours. Would be interesting mechanic.

[Sphinxer]

Haven't you learned your lesson yet ?

chadz says left, he goes right. That 5 month rounds is bs as always. When he feels like it, he'll just reset it. Probably when dev clans are being raped or bored of having raped everything .... It's funny to see that devs aren't neutral in this mod, but actively playing with their real name (you could at least fake it ffs..).

Minimum troops required (about 100~150) is a great idea. Enough of those mini-battles, if you wanna do 49 vs 49 , go play on the battle server instead of annoying us with those useless (and mostly no good equips) battles.