Thanks Vibe, I appreciate it. I already investigated some cool ones by the advice of friends (Wesnoth, Khan Wars, Panzer General, etc...) and it helped me a little. Especially UI-wise.
* Small cav armies for fast operations - vulnerable to slower balanced army setups
* Hidden units (agents, spies)
* Tactical positions on the map - bridges, mountain passes, rivers - where different army types has bonuses
* Ability to hide certain armies in forests
* Ability to setup ambushes
Green is planned exactly like you said it :
seting up ambushes will be closely linked to the
"tactical positions" on the map, and the size of your army will influence at which distance you are spotted; and we will definitely have a
speed system which can be sped up by horses (we will have cavalrymen (light/normal/heavy) that will be naturally mounted, thus fast, AND draft horses that will be used to transport troops and stuff (if in enough quantity, the army will be at horse's speed) and draft horses will be capturable in battle and very important for everyone
).
More details:
In the case where you dont have enough horses for everyone, you will be at the slowest unit pace by default. But if you choose to sacrifice a part of your army you will be able to go at the fastest unit pace, thus leaving men behind to cover your retreat in the face of certain death (M&B ftw).
There will also be "normal march" speed, and "forced march" speed. This combined with "slowest unit pace" - "fastest unit pace", and the influence of cavalrymen/draft horses on speed + the influence of the environment (you go slower through a forest, etc...) we should have a whole strategical game moving your pawns across the map.
On the
ability to hide certain armies in forests, atm I think more like Strategus system: the moment you're in a forest you are invisible to those not inside (except if you're just one hex in). What do you think we could do to add more complexity to that ?
Hidden units (agents spies) isnt planned, because we think it will be completely covered by the fact that each "dots" will be able to field between 1 and 10 000 men, and that you will be able to completely control which kind of soldiers are the 1 to 10 000 men. If you want to spy, you will have to allocate your
army support limit (think Rome 2 total war) to that by creating an army of a very small size that will be very hard to spot on the map but that will have an equal power of observation than any army size (1 man can see as well as 10 000 individually, but its easier to spot 10 000 marching men than only 1).
Still:
your idea isnt bad, because if someone allocates 100% of his army support to full fledged armies, he will be stronger than someone who decided to share it with spying/scouting/secret ops mission armies. Maybe we will have a more complicated army support limit where ONE DOT doesnt use ONE POINT, but a more progressive cost where a small party cost less than a big one. Care to share ideas?
Lots of good stuff S-Key
I will develop on your post!
Diplomacy is very much Work In Progress so dont think I'm completely closed about this.As for discouraging huge alliances... Hmmm. The only ways to penalize it i can think of would depend on allies formally registering as alllies..
Problem is, even if you use a diplomatic limit system (like in Europa Universalis 4, the "diplomatic relationship" hard cap); it only works between the players and AI players. Humans will always circumvent this (and they should!) by signing out-of-the-game deals, and its completely encouraged by the game.
You know, when Chy and I made the "diplomatic" filter for Strat, and people started talking to me about that, it was very interesting. They had to
UNILATERALLY decide who is an ally, who is friendly, neutral, hostile or enemy. They cant know
FOR SURE if its the reality, its just their point of view based on their own perception of the world.
BECAUSE there is no alliance magic button, noone trust anyone fully and I think it encourages war more than anything.
But:
we will maybe push the "diplomatic filter" strategus idea a bit farther without restricting players actions. By that I mean, you should always be able to attack an ally, or let go an enemy. Why? Because you can, and in time you will. So maybe we will work on something like "contracts" between players, where they both decide to sign something that has a "virtual" meaning (an alliance or a war is only a paper where you sign with your sigil right?). That would give more visibility and diplomatic options without endangering the freedom to act.
So whatever your diplomatic official relationship status, you will ALWAYS be able to murder/rape anything you point your cursor at. Also we will have a reinforcement system where anyone close enough can join a battle and add his army- TO ANY SIDE HE CHOOSES TO - to the semi auto-resolve battle.
Actually, thanks to GRANDMOM, Thomek and Tristan I found 3 new ideas on encouraging war :
*
Guerilla/ambush/raiding kind of attack, where a small army can at least slow down/weaken a bigger army without too much losses (should have a bigger chance be an anonymous attack)
*
Controlling provinces/regions capitals (a big city kind of fief) automatically taxes & reduce income in
EVERY FIEFS of the province/region area that isnt your own, so that players "under the rule" of a provincial/regional liege will automatically be kind of vassalized-humiliated (they often go hand in hand) and will seek to raze the capital or capture it for themselves (or just be cute little pets)
*
Moving armies on
ANY FIEF's zone of influence (other players territories, even allies, even your own fiefs!) will desolate the area proportionally to the number of soldiers moving in and reduce income (forced scavenging, stealing peasants, disrupting the trade) so that military access is a privilege that you grant to only the best of friends and only if really necessary, and just moving around you will create enemies for life
As for the name of the game, dont worry we will find something compatible with the scale of it, but having polls about it always help.
