Suggestion: 49 to 99

[ulya]

A lot of people have been complaining about strat dieing and such, and quite some people(especially newer people/small factions) have low chances to grow, since it's pretty impossible to counter deathstacks.

So I started thinking a bit, what could be done to make both strat and the battles more interesting, I came to the conclusion that increasing the amount of troops you can have from 49 to 99 for free could give strat a (small) boost again.
This would mean people have bigger chances to attack the deathstacks,
It would allow smaller factions to fight for empty villages easily, thus decreasing the power of the big alliances, and increasing the influence of smaller factions, and potentialy new alliances.
You would also obviously need to equip the extra men, which could increase trade between blacksmiths, and trade in general.

I think this could be an interesting change in strat, voice your opinion!

[engurrand]

they gotta pay 10 a day or gay

[PhantomZero]

This just means that deathstacks get an extra 50 guys, and unlike you, be able to equip them all fully. Trade would not increase between anyone and smaller factions fighting over empty villages will not decrease the power of big alliances.

Think a little harder.

[Taser]

This just means that deathstacks get an extra 50 guys, and unlike you, be able to equip them all fully. Trade would not increase between anyone and smaller factions fighting over empty villages will not decrease the power of big alliances.

Think a little harder.

So it needs to be increased to 149 then?

Am I doing it right?

[ulya]

I was thinking about letting the formulas to calculate the upkeep cost be the same, but just increase the free part.

So somebody with 300 troops pays 23 per hour right now, and would pay 23 after the change, but somebody with 99 pays 5 per hour right now, and would pay nothing after the change.

I don't think it's much harder to equip an army of 99 men either, especially with blacksmiths around that can make quality items for cheap prices.

It's also still a small suggestion, it would be nice if you'd give your own opinions on making it work.

[Muki]

won't this help the bigger factions too? since they too would have the 99 no upkeep troops

[ulya]

Yes, but most big factions/long time players can already easily fund big armies(bigger than 99), so they won't get as much benefit from it.

And this suggestion isn't for punishing big factions/helping new people, but more for making the game more interesting(bigger battles, maybe an economic boost, more attacks on empty villages and maybe more things I can't think of, but will eventually happen).

It also isn't supposed to be some gamebreaking change, but just a small change that might turn out interesting.

[KillerofFlowers]

I think the way to make it fair between the big and small factions would be any clan that has under 40 members gets the 99 troops for free but any can that has more than 40 members only gets the 49 troops for free

[Tomas]

I don't see the point.

99 troops will cost you twice as much to equip, won't let you take on a bigger faction since they will still have more men than you and better equipment.  Meanwhile the people that you can attack will also have 99 troops instead of 49 so there will be no change for you.

If you want to give new players a chance then reduce the strat prices of the lower end gear.

As it stands basic peasant gear which actual peasants would presumably have to hand
49 Tunic's with Vest
49 Hide Boots
49 Felt Hats
49 Pitch Fork
costs approx 450 strat gold and to make 450 strat gold you need to craft goods in a 100% efficient, 1 gold visiting fee, high prosperity fief for 2/3 days whilst selling the goods straight back to the fief.

This gear is crap and 3 days to equip 49 troops with it is ridiculous especially when you remember that such fiefs rarely exist!  Since any visiting fee over 10 gold completely removes a players profit when selling back to the same fief, the best a new player can actually hope for is <50% efficiency in a town/castle.  This means they are actually looking at a week or more to equip 49 peasants and everytime they get attacked and lose it is another week before they can start again.

None of the basic peasant gear should cost more than 0.25 strat gold.  For me this includes;
- armour up to Tunic with Vest
- boots up to Ankle Boots
- Helmets up to the Turban
- 1 Handers up to the torch
- 2 Handers up to Practice Logsword
- Polearms up to the Staff
- and finally rocks & prctice shields

It is all crap and reducing its cost would mean a peasant army of 49 can be equipped for just 47 strat gold instead of 450 meaning it takes less than a day to get started which is far better imo.

Obviously the high end gear should keep its current costs

[ulya]

As I said, this isn't (only) about helping new people, but more about giving a small (activity) boost to strat, by having more troops per side the battles itself will become bigger, and thus more fun(my opinion, and I think quite some people would agree), more sieges, especially on villages.

I don't think actually equiping your army would be that hard. There'd be no reason for anybody to craft and sell in the same place, and by traveling a small distance and sell there you'd already make quite some profit(especially if you craft for around 5 and sell for 20-30)

This change could also make more blacksmiths show up that would be willing to craft decent equip for low prices, like Bale's shop.

[PhantomZero]

Battles with bigger numbers doesn't make strat battles fun, it makes them longer.

Battles over important towns with equipment that actually lets you at least hurt the enemy make it fun.

The best way to increase activity in strat is to have regular updates to the game that make it less of a chore to play.

[ulya]

The best way to increase activity in strat is to have regular updates to the game that make it less of a chore to play.

Agreed, but I don't expect this to happen, so I started thinking of small things that don't need somebody writing for a week, but could still make some changes.

[PhantomZero]

Agreed, but I don't expect this to happen, so I started thinking of small things that don't need somebody writing for a week, but could still make some changes.

If nobody is making big changes, there sure as hell aren't going to be any small ones either.

It takes months just to get game-breaking fixes looked at.

[Slamz]

I suggested this a long time ago.

I don't know why people are opposed.

49 troops isn't worth the time it takes to schedule the battle.  People can't be expected to set their alarms and take time out of their day to be at their computers in time for a battle that's only going to take 5 minutes.  Making 99 troops the "normal minimum" would help keep battles to a minimum length that's long enough to be worth signing up for.