[en] Edain Mod > [Edain] General Suggestions
Melting the snowball, The five headed beast: Ideas to promote siege battles.
Goodfella:
Hi, thank you for you reply @Noldor
Spellbook
I think spell points per kill is a way to reward a player for playing well. It's understandable why this is put in. But we have to be careful to reward a player too much, to avoid snowballing. I agree with you that spell-points should be given equally to players (e.g. through spell points over time).
The winning player will always be rewarded, they will always have more troops than their enemy, they killed them after all. I think the question is: how much do we want to reward the player? We have to constantly consider this in the context of 'wanting sieging' too.
I love the fact that spells are connected to the citadel. It gives a nice juicy target to aim for in a siege.
Experience
Experience over time? Hmmmm. That's controversial but i kind of like it? Nori has it already, so it's certainly possible. I think lots of people will not like it though. I kind of don't not like it, if that makes sense :P
The biggest fear is that it will be too much too soon. I think other features should be put in first and if we are struggling do deal with snowballing and 'no-seiging'. Then it could be debated. I predict that's gonna be a hell of a debate tho :D
Troops
I like the idea of upkeep cost, but again, it's something that may be too much too soon. Perhaps we should see what the other changes are like first, then decide if we need it.
We don't want stalemates, and never ending sieges, that's even worse than snowballing XD
A routing mechanic would be interesting but unnecessary imo. If anything routing makes it worse for the loosing player. He starts to lose the battle, then loses control of his army (can't micro them). The enemy then picks off the remained of troops while they run out of control.
Thanks again for your reply
DrHouse93:
Just came in my mind an idea about the "siege problem"
First of all, we must look at history. What used to happen during a siege?
The defender gathered all the possible resources and troops behind his walls (or in the very proximity) to fight back the invaders, but not to assault them on their own
How can this be implemented in Edain? The possible solution I thought is the following ability, selectable in the citadel:
"Defend the bastion
It can't be activated in the first 5 minutes of game. It can be activated only if all the player's troops are in short range of the fortress, and can't be activated if it's already active for a fortress
The troops of namefaction gather all the resources they can to prepare themselves to defend their bastion. For the following 5 minutes, all external economic buildings will send all their income directly to the main base, and therefore will generate no resources. On the other hand, internal economic buildings will generate 50% more resources. Furthermore, the ability doubles the CP limit, halves the research time of inner economic upgrades and the recruitment time of units inside the fortress, but new troops, being called to arms faster than the ordinary, are less trained, and therefore gain experience more slowly. Also, troops and siege engines inside the radius of the ability gain +25% armor
The ability has a very long cooldown (10-15) minutes, and is instantly deactivated if the troops get out of the ability radius"
This, I think, should provide the defender player enough buffs to not only survive a siege (provided it's skilled enough) but also to comeback, without creating a stalemate and also forcing the attacker to end as quickly as possible (because, while it's true that the ability only lasts for 5 minutes, the more time the attacker wastes, the more the chances the defender has to drive him back and come back
Also, the doubled CPs (rather than a fixed value) should work well with how the besieged player played until now: if he has played well and has a decent amount of CPs, even if his pantry buildings are destroyed, the ability should grant him decent CPs while the ability remains active. On the other hand, if he played bad, or just sat in his base the whole time, he's granted the minimum CPs buff he can get
The Units' Recruitment Factor is very similar to Denethor's Emergency State (which I was mainly inspired from, in fact). However, while Denethor's troops cost less, have worse stats and can't be upgraded, Defend the Bastion doesn't affect the troops' stats overall, neither removes the possibility to upgrade them, while also not making them useless once the invaders have been driven back, because the experience problem can be solved over time (through spells, heroes, or even by fighting repeatedly)
Gnomi:
--- Zitat ---First of all, we must look at history. What used to happen during a siege?
The defender gathered all the possible resources and troops behind his walls (or in the very proximity) to fight back the invaders, but not to assault them on their own
--- Ende Zitat ---
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH [ugly] [ugly] [ugly] I just hope that you didn't read that in a book about (medieval) history.
I won't say anything about the idea itself, just about the historical facts, because you are making it too easy for yourself DrHouse with your assumption about historical sieges.^^
If you really want to talk about medieval accurate sieges, you have to look at a bit more:
First you have to differ between medieval castles, medieval cities and some more different types of fortified constructions (like single towers etc.) - I will mostly look at castles, as I would call most of our big fortified constructions (with walkable walls) a castle. Mainly Gondor is a difference, as (if you are historically accurate) it would probably be called a city, not a castle. I know that there is a difference between a historical (medieval) castle and fantasy castles. (our Gondor-castle would probably be a fantasy castle, but - as said - not a medieval castle)
What's the main difference between a castle and a City?
A city is a civil complex. Of course there can be military buildings (like guardrooms), but they are made to serve the civil purposes. A city also (most of the times) had the right to build a wall. Quite often (but not always) it was linked to the market rights.
Gondor, being able to build a market and many houses for civilian purposes, has therefore structures, which belong into a city, but not a castle.
A castle is a military complex and a residence for the leader (goverment) of the area. Of course there can be civilian buildings in a castle, but they are made to serve the military or government purposes.
The military purposes of a castle are divers. Most of the times it's like military barracks in our current world: Weapons are stored and fighters are trained and can live there.
But now let's focus on the siege of medieval castles. Mostly there weren't all civilians in the castle, most of them stayed outside. It is rather similar to wars in our current world:
If you attack (in WW I, WW II or any other war) a country, you don't want to destroy everything and everyone. Why should you kill all civilians and all civil buildings?
You don't want to destroy everything, you want to conquer the country and having all the buildings and a working society will be way better for you, as you don't have to build everything new and also don't have to wait until your peasants in your country get enough children, who can live in the conquered lands.
Sometimes strategies like scorched earth were used, but that were just temporarely strategies - in the long run you don't just want to destroy everything.
We also alle know that it is reaaally difficult to siege a castle and win. You needed way more men and better equipment, otherwise your chances to win were basically 0.
But if it is so difficult to siege a castle:
WHY SHOULD YOU ATTACK IT? Why don't you just take all the other lands around the castle or starve them out?
Let me first talk about starving them out, because it is quicker to talk about that:
There are mainly two different reasons against it:
Most of the times, time was in favor of the defender.
Is winter close? => You want to stay in the castle and don't want to stay in some tents outside the castle.
Is a big army coming? => Quite often the attacker has already rallied all his troups, while the defender wasn't able to do it. If they get reinforcements, it will be way more difficult to attack the castle. Also they might have enough troups to win in a full fight.
Quite often you also don't have enough troups to fully cut them of supplies, so they might also manage to rally more truops in near settlements and get a slowly growing force by that.
There were more reasons, but those were some of the most important reasons.
Especially in combination with scorched earth, this will lead to nearly nothing.
Now let's talk about ignoring the troups in the castle, while you just took all the land around the castle. If you can't attack them and can't starve them... Why even bother with them?
And here we come to the tricky part:
Most wars in medieval times weren't decided by a big battle, where every side just used all their soldiers. Actually most big battles were very onesided and not as close as in lord of the rings. Mostly after the beginning, one side began to get the upper hand, the moral of the enemy broke and it was just a slaughter.
Most of the wars were decided because of many small skrimishes. And that was exactly why you weren't able to ignore the fortress:
They could always start small skirmishes: Get out without you noticing, attacking one position (as they were attacking, they had more and stronger people there most of the time) and then they had the possibility to retreat to the castle. Your troups had no castle, threfore not such a huge and easy defendable defense. Also you weren't able to harass the people in the fortress.
Even if you already try to starve them, they would still be able to do those small skirmishes in their favor.
So the main reason to attack a castle was because they had a safe place and could always harass you, while you had big difficulties to fight it.
So forbidding the player to leave the fortress, would actually be the exact opposite of what a true medieval siege looked like. The defender should (until the exact moment when cataupults, siege towers and ladders started rolling to your base) always try to find small skirmishes, destroy the suplies and so on. THAT would be historical accurate.
Your idea would force the player to use the ability long before the actual siege starts and this would lead to a gameplay, which is everything but historical accurate.^^
Just a small note:
I know that orcs would probably kill all the people and would most likely use scorched earth as a strategy. But that would change only very little about the siege (and the behavior of the besieged person itself).
I also know that fantasy castles are quite often more similar to a city, but my points would still hold.
DrHouse93:
Wow, I didn't know I would have caused such an horrified reaction to you, Gnomi :D
Anyway, I admit I've been very vague about sieges, but when I conceived the idea I was mainly thinking about the "starving the castle" tactic. Of course, all the implications you rightly pointed out can't be applied and implemented to the game for obvious reasons
Unfortunately, putting a range in the ability is the only way to prevent the player to use it offensively rather than how it's meant to be used: defensively. Of course, I considered the ideas of small skirmishes and sorties outside the fortress just to thwart the enemy's efforts and recover from being cornered, so that's why I specified the ability can be activated in a certain range from the fortress, rather than just inside it
But again, given the buffs it would grant, it shouldn't be activated freely: otherwise, players will first of all use it thoughtlessly most of the times, but also can abuse it. The ability is intended to increase the chance of survival and comeback of a cornered player, but in order to not abuse it the radius from the fortress is necessary :)
(unless another solution can be figured out, of course)
IgRAzm:
This is such a good topic, that very adequately adresses the issues with snowballing. I had written my first post about walls yesterday, and in truth one of the true reasons why I wanted something like that is because the players tend to snowball and gain unrivaled control of the map too easily - but indeed, it is a change that can't fix the snowballing on its own, at most it allows the defending player to take better fights and keep some of his settlements alive longer.
I think the changes made in the latest patches had to have improved the situation since 3 years ago, but the problem didn't truly cease. I'd say I got inspired a lot by this and the other discussions, so I thought it would be better to try revive an old thread with my ideas.
Well, my first correction for the modern patch situation is this: the economy clearly was corrected already by the 4.5.5 patch, to account for the snowballing situation. Additionally, the command limit system was changed in favor of citadel research - it too doesn't require direct changes now. So I will focus on the other three points: the spell book, the experience and the troops.
Still, some words can be said about the economical domination of the winning player. I think there's no need for more global nerfs of economy, in fact I think army upkeep scenario (whether through making extra troops sap your resources slowly or by making them reduce economic buildings effeciency) wouldn't make for a good dynamics change, no matter how well balanced or severe would be the numbers. Among other things it could promote counter-intuitive scenarios like selling your troops at the citadel just to buy new ones before siege. If we don't try that approach, there's not much left to do other than weaking the winning player's army. But I think a bit more nuanced option presents itself, that has its roots in basically all the snowballing counters, but would be more easy to comprehend for the players.
Victory Dilemma
This is the collective name of the debuffs that may affect the winning player's army. The debuffs would be explained in the spell row in game, at the bottom of it, the same way the Sauron leveling information gets presented for Mordor; and in even more detail in the citadel, with faction-dependant story excerpts put in. The debuffs will have three tiers of severity: from a Minor Victory, from a Decisive Victory, and from a Glorious Victory. The level of victory depends on the difference between the winner (or their team's, combined) filled command points and the enemy (or their team's, combined). Rather than using a fixed amount, it uses the percentages: the winner has to have at least 50%, 100%, or 150% more army than the enemy, respectively. Also, the Victory Dilemma only applies if one player loses a lot of the army while not having resources to rebuild it - there is a shared value that each command points gets equated to and then compared to the losing player's collected resources (something like 1500 per 100 CP).
To make it more interesting, I also thought of the narrative reasonings behind the debuffs. They could be seen in the citadel, in Victory Dilemma tab.
A minor Victory Dilemma
A minor victory has a drastic cost for the losing player generally, and it is very often the beginning of a snowball growth. However we can't punish the winner too badly yet. The Dilemma debuffs have different appearences for different factions in the names and descriptions, but function the same between them. The debuffs applied will only depend on the conditions of a victory. The negative effects on your units don't apply in your camps and castles, with exception of the command points increase, so if the enemy actually manages to recover so much that he becomes a threat to your base, you can defend without as big a disadvantage as you would have when beseiging them yourself.
Possible debuffs:
1)Indecision of the troops
Conditions: Previously, the winner had killed the most enemy troops through using their heroes.
Narrative reasoning (the story behind the situation; in this example, for the Rohan faction): The people of Rohan are in majority not warriors, and even the Rohirrim ride in the name of their peace, not for destruction's sake. Hardly any of them seen so much death in their lives as during these battles. Your heroes had done much, but to win the war, the countrymen also must be convinced that this is definitely their fight, and no one else's.
Debuffs: The heroes receive 75% less experience from the nearby units' kills (personal kills aren't affected). The regular (non-elite or heroic) units have -15% armor and damage. The regular units fill +15% command points. The spell points generate 15% longer and the spells recharge 15% longer.
Resolutions: You get access to a research "Celebration" in the citadel, cost - 900, and can only be researched if you have a hero of a level 3+ in the castle/camp. Celebration takes two minutes, and after it ends, your citadel gain an aura that removes the negative effects of the Victory Dilemma from the units that return to your castle or camp, and it also fixes the spellbook.
Commentary: I've decided that it's more interesting to debuff the player army in parts rather than whole. Instead of going after the most useful combatants, I think it makes for more interesting gameplay to actually promote the winner to use the most effecient thing for him. That would make the more active player want to keep fighting rather than wait out for his control over the map to give him an even bigger advantage. Indeed, after winning a fight, the winner that wants to push the advantage will be at a risk, as both his army and spellbook will be weaker than normally. And to take home the idea of heroes needing the rest of the army to be effective, under the debuff they are only as effective as normally when fighting alone - the player may try to protect the conquered territory with just heroes. This is what this dilemma is about - tempting the winner to decide if he can accept a risk to his dominating position in a new confrontation. That, or the alternative of giving the enemy quite a lot of time to recover by celebrating the victory at home with their whole army. Losing settlements is easy and when your enemy has 3+ minutes of allowance, he has a real chance to turn the tide. If the winner completely ignores the vulnerability of his troops, his advance might simply get overwhelmed by the defender, who's army may grow more slowly at first, but doesn't require extra pantry researches at the citadel - researches that further delay the possibility of the winning army to recover at the celebration.
2)Indecision of the command
Conditions: Previously, the winner had killed the most enemies via their regular units.
Narrative reasoning (for Gondor faction): The troops under your command are overtaken with pride and contempt for the enemy. Many wish for a full-on attack, to rid this land of the foulness at once. But your advisors and some commanders have a different opinion on things. Maybe this was all a distraction and the enemy had planned a surprise attack, that you wouldn't be able to deflect if you chose an assault? "Additional scouting and research is required", - this is their council.
Debuffs: The units receive 75% less experience from the heroes killing enemies nearby. The heroes have -15% to armor and damage, and fill +30% command points. The spell points generate 15% longer and the spells recharge 15% longer.
Resolutions: A research "Military Meeting" is enabled in the citadel, and can be researched if there is at least one batallion of level 3+ in the base. While researching, the spells are unavailable. After finishing, the citadel gains an aura that removes the Dilemma debuff from the nearby heroes, and the spellbook is fixed.
Commentary: Similarly to the previous Dilemma, the regular army can be quite vulnerable without heroes. It is an option to choose a squad and at the same time keep the army in the map for control, but of course that is a serious risk that the winning player takes, as he on top of it all can't help himself with spells for 2 minutes. Or you may of course attack properly, ignoring the debuffs to the heroes and spells, but a siege at a disadvantage may also prove disastrous, with the defending player having walls or towers, and getting more experience and spell points than you do.
3)Distrust and preconceptions
Conditions: The player had killed the most enemies through using the spellbook/units coming from spellbook.
Narrative reasoning (for Mordor faction): The orcs have their own view of the dominion of Sauron over Middle-earth, and regardless of how little He would be concerned with their thoughts, their actions have direct effect on the battles. In particular, they don't seem to like the easterlings taking any fame and loot from the battles that are predominately fought by the orcs.
Debuffs: The heroes and regular units receive -15% to attack and armor, fill +15% command points and gain -25% experience in battle.
Resolutions: A research "Lessons of the Messengers" gets available in the citadel, and requires a batallion of regular troops and a hero to be at the base, and both must be level 2 at least. The slavemasters and messengers of Sauron give them, and everyone else visiting the base later, good lessons on what will be done to them if they don't cooperate at war to fight for the master (imagine there are cages with tortured orcs for show, dead or still living).
I imagine there might be other debuffs types, but I haven't came up with more yet.
Decisive and Glorious Victory Dilemmas are mostly just boosted versions of the Minor Dilemmas (like, 15% armor and dmg reduction become 30% or 50% respectively), though maybe there could be additional restrictions such as reduced sizes of leadership auras or more weaknesses for unit types/heroes around particular unit types/heroes. For bigger wins, larger summs of money must be used for the celebrations and such, taking longer time and requiring more experienced and respected warriors to perform. I should also add that all these dilemmas would be known to the losing player too - in the citadel there are written both your own dilemmas and your enemy's status at the time. So as a defending player you would know which units are more vulnerable at this time, if you just keep track of that info.
So, does anyone else think that the games need something at least similar to this to counteract the snowballing? I don't think there's many options other than nerfing the winning player in some way. The debuffs may seem artificial and maybe they are a little too much, but at least I think they strike against the core issue. The armies, when they win, do so very strikingly, but that happens because of certain units getting just a slight upperhand - the gap just grows very rapidly. If the winning player has to ease his grip on the opponent, at least for a few minutes, I think the games could get more results that are less clear after just the first main engagement. And there's also the factor of players who decide to not let the enemy have any breather - depending on how the feature gets balanced, it could be that either strategy gets equally appealing (or unappealing, more likely), but in result there will be games that have tension, frantic counterattacks, sieges with focuses on the most important targets such as citadel or unit productions. And I'm sure that fighting back an enemy who overextended, snatching that victory from jaws of defeat, would be immensely satisfying.
Navigation
[0] Themen-Index
[#] Nächste Seite
[*] Vorherige Sete
Zur normalen Ansicht wechseln