BattleMaster Community

BattleMaster => Development => Topic started by: Zakky on November 29, 2017, 11:09:55 PM

Title: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Zakky on November 29, 2017, 11:09:55 PM
How about drastically reducing the recruit production speed while a region has too many militias?

5k CS is probably a good line I think. Anything above that should probably be considered a bit excessive but that is just me.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Chenier on November 30, 2017, 02:18:37 AM
I'm all for nerfing militia. I'd rather them only nerfed vs non-rogues, though.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: feyeleanor on November 30, 2017, 01:07:33 PM
I'm against Nerfing militias. In rurals they're only a threat to small raiding parties whilst big cities with strong defences should be tough nuts to crack by direct assault.

I'd much prefer a siege mechanic instead to blockade food imports to a specific city and starve both the population and the garrison as part of an overhaul of the Trader class.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Zakky on November 30, 2017, 07:46:40 PM
Militias haven't been nerfed at all. With our declining player base, militias are getting stronger than ever. There just aren't enough people you can bring to siege a city. Just look at the Northern Alliance on EC. At most they can bring 35k CS. If you haven't noticed, there is no cap or downside for recruiting militias.

They are way too good right now. Cities are already getting way too difficult to crack. When was the last time you've managed to starve a city?

For that to happen, it needs a complete overhaul of food system which won't happen for years or maybe never.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: feyeleanor on November 30, 2017, 08:36:21 PM
Militias haven't been nerfed at all. With our declining player base, militias are getting stronger than ever. There just aren't enough people you can bring to siege a city. Just look at the Northern Alliance on EC. At most they can bring 35k CS. If you haven't noticed, there is no cap or downside for recruiting militias.

I'm pretty sure the Northern Alliance could field a much larger army than that if they tried.

Quote
They are way too good right now. Cities are already getting way too difficult to crack. When was the last time you've managed to starve a city?

For that to happen, it needs a complete overhaul of food system which won't happen for years or maybe never.

The "new" food system made it much more difficult to starve cities anyway, and since then I've only seen that done when a realm could be completely starved of food. Sieges aren't something BM does well but where I think mechanics could be improved without necessitating a huge rewrite of what's already there.

As to peasant militias, instead of demanding they be nerfed you could get a skilled diplomat or priest involved. Whilst it's time-consuming they have the necessary skills to generate hate or love. Or do you think all those angry peasants currently playing hunt-the-knight in Aureus are just there by happenstance?
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Zakky on November 30, 2017, 11:38:19 PM
Looks like you don't fully understand why militias are big problems in general.

I am not talking about just peasant militias. Despite them having their own set of issues, normal militias people are putting to defend are causing too many issues.

1) Militias are as strong as player controlled units
--Their only disadvantage is the fact they can't move. Why should they, units without any commander, be as strong as player controlled units?

2) Even when you can't pay them, they don't desert like player controlled units. A small portion of them will leave but not significant enough to deter even small regions without any capability of paying militias to recruit a lot of them.
--If a region can't pay for militias, they should burn the region to the ground and take all the gold and leave. Mind you, these militias are paid soldiers. In BM you are not commanding retinues or soldiers from your holdings. You are literally buying mercenaries off the market. That is why they will beat you up and take all your gold when you fail to pay them. You are bound by a contract to pay them in time. They don't wait for you to pay them later because they have no loyalty. Why should militias be any different? If your region cannot pay anymore, they should ransack your region and take what they can and leave not guard the region forever.

3)Cities being able to support way too many militias
--This is what is causing big issues. Cities were hard to siege before but at least you could starve one years ago. But even then it was still hard to take a city because you still had to deal with militias. Just getting enough siege engines alone take months. To siege a city with lv5 walls, you need at least 50 SEs and even then you will often see siege engines being too crowded. These days, with archers being stronger than the days when you could starve cities, it is nigh impossible to siege a city that is rich enough to put men on the walls constantly. One realm alone can't siege a city that has over 1.5k gold income. You need to bring more realms in just for one city. This encourages realms to gang up on one realm just to take a city. I am pretty sure the game is trying to discourage people from ganging up which it has failed to do so for the entirety of its lifespan. Not saying it is purely the game's fault however since people like to gang up and I don't think mechanics can discourage it. But at least it shouldn't encourage it.

4) With the addition of new market system (--which Anaris is working on to finish but since it is a major change it will take years) and food distribution change (which allows you to run your city at 50% food consumption 24/7 without any major downside), you will never be able to starve a city out. This forces you to the only other option on the table which is siege.

5) Skilled diplomats
They are very hard to come by. Have you checked how many non-warrior class there are in the game at the moment? Not many. There just aren't enough people anymore. You don't even have enough to fight off your enemies. For most small realms, they will hardly have one. Also, skill diplomats only affect relations not actual militias people put in their regions.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: feyeleanor on December 01, 2017, 01:37:59 AM
1) Heroes and captains both boost the performance of player-controlled units so I don't think the comparison is accurate, and there's a lot more variability in militia performance in successive battles if they've retreated or are scattered than with player controlled units.
2) Militias for the most part are immobile so have a more settled existence than player-controlled troops. They always have a place to live, first preference for any food and presumably local attachments.
3) Most cities are not Oligarch and will not resist a sustained siege by a single realm committed to their capture. Having spent my entire BM career on the receiving end of gangup wars whilst practicing the black arts of defensive warfare I've never seen any evidence that the gangups occur because the victim has unconquerable cities.
4) Sieges could be handled with a new unit stance besieging which if all defenders are in normal or defensive would establish a siege and put the onus on the defender to attack (as with a TO) and lose the advantage of walls. During the siege food couldn't be moved into or out of the region. Enable the Black Market for traders and this could allow them to smuggle a proportion of food offers into the city at a sizeble profit siphoned direct from the region's tax office.
5) There are still a few Priests and they make great Diplomats due to both having Oratory as a primary skill. I'd like to see more of them and think priests shouldn't count against a player's noble character count.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Chenier on December 01, 2017, 02:04:23 AM
I'm against Nerfing militias. In rurals they're only a threat to small raiding parties whilst big cities with strong defences should be tough nuts to crack by direct assault.

I'd much prefer a siege mechanic instead to blockade food imports to a specific city and starve both the population and the garrison as part of an overhaul of the Trader class.

The best threat to small raiding parties is small (counter)-raiding parties. Militia are there to prevent tiny forces from overtaking vital regions like cities, not to replace a mobile army.

Militia just blocks all actions. There's no fun in two realms spending 20k in militia, and then 5k in mobile forces that are so tiny all they can do is stare at each other all day.

Militia was never meant to be an army stopping force in regions without fortifications, and even then.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Zakky on December 01, 2017, 02:31:56 AM
Quote
1) Heroes and captains both boost the performance of player-controlled units so I don't think the comparison is accurate, and there's a lot more variability in militia performance in successive battles if they've retreated or are scattered than with player controlled units.

--Heroes and captains don't provide enough to impact the performance of units that much. So my point still stands. If heroes and captains made significant impacts, it would have been a different story but they don't. They are very minor.

Quote
2) Militias for the most part are immobile so have a more settled existence than player-controlled troops. They always have a place to live, first preference for any food and presumably local attachments.
--I am talking about their roleplay potential. They were either recruited by the lord from nearby regions which I guess in this case makes sense with your idea of them having preference to food and local attachments but in most cases people drop their own units to increase them quickly. This of course is not necessary for capitals but then again capitals are where all recruits gather so they would hardly have any attachment.

Quote
3) Most cities are not Oligarch and will not resist a sustained siege by a single realm committed to their capture. Having spent my entire BM career on the receiving end of gangup wars whilst practicing the black arts of defensive warfare I've never seen any evidence that the gangups occur because the victim has unconquerable cities.

Since you like to bring your BM career as an example here, I spent over 6 years on leading armies of various sizes. Unlike you, I spent my time both fighting off gangups and besieging cities both small and large. What changed everything was the archer bug fix. They hit harder than the days when Fontan fell with you. Or the days when I besieged Oligarch against Fane. With enough infantry to keep men off of archers, your militias are a lot more cost efficient than before. They are different from melee militia days of old because archers can damage your men long before you can even get near the walls. Either the walls need to be limited to lv3 at most for cities or militias need to be nerfed in one way or another. It is way too easy to defend fortified regions due to various changes over the years. While defenders got stronger, attackers did not. Actually there are less attackers now so even easier to defend.

Quote
4) Sieges could be handled with a new unit stance besieging which if all defenders are in normal or defensive would establish a siege and put the onus on the defender to attack (as with a TO) and lose the advantage of walls. During the siege food couldn't be moved into or out of the region. Enable the Black Market for traders and this could allow them to smuggle a proportion of food offers into the city at a sizeble profit siphoned direct from the region's tax office.

I am trying to provide an easier solution until these new features god knows when come. All the things you've mentioned need to be coded from scratch. Also some of them are planned already. Why do we need to unit status even.

[qutoe]5) There are still a few Priests and they make great Diplomats due to both having Oratory as a primary skill. I'd like to see more of them and think priests shouldn't count against a player's noble character count.[/quote]

I don't think this one belongs here. Nothing to do with militia.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Zakky on December 01, 2017, 02:34:25 AM
Militia just blocks all actions. There's no fun in two realms spending 20k in militia, and then 5k in mobile forces that are so tiny all they can do is stare at each other all day.

Exactly. If you can only muster 5k CS then you should die. Not survive on the back of 20k CS militia units you've recruited with gold.

I can see people being able to temporarily increase their militia CS quickly but it should come with a heavy price tag since at that point you are not going to really recruit that many militias. You should be recruiting mercenaries and they cost a lot of gold.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: feyeleanor on December 01, 2017, 08:44:06 PM
Since you like to bring your BM career as an example here, I spent over 6 years on leading armies of various sizes. Unlike you, I spent my time both fighting off gangups and besieging cities both small and large. What changed everything was the archer bug fix. They hit harder than the days when Fontan fell with you. Or the days when I besieged Oligarch against Fane. With enough infantry to keep men off of archers, your militias are a lot more cost efficient than before. They are different from melee militia days of old because archers can damage your men long before you can even get near the walls. Either the walls need to be limited to lv3 at most for cities or militias need to be nerfed in one way or another. It is way too easy to defend fortified regions due to various changes over the years. While defenders got stronger, attackers did not. Actually there are less attackers now so even easier to defend.

I've spent most of the past three years focused on siege defence and ranged tactics. With preparation and good planning it's possible to make it very hard for attackers to take a city but unless you're manning your walls with Range 5 SF 100/100/100 an attacker with better ranged forces will wear down your garrison and take your walls. They don't even need more men than you if their range is longer and the weather favourable.

I put this to the test with the siege of Alowca. A defending garrison of Range 4 SF behind lvl 5 walls was decimated by an attacking force of Range 5 SF. It took several days of stalemate battles before the garrison were defeated, but they were defeated. Whilst several realms were involved in the assault, only two of them brought the SF and the number of those was smaller than the number of SF defenders.

Quote
I am trying to provide an easier solution until these new features god knows when come. All the things you've mentioned need to be coded from scratch. Also some of them are planned already. Why do we need to unit status even.

Because unit status would be a simple and discrete hook to use. It's already used for evasive to avoid battles. I can't comment on the amount of coding involved to add sieges this way to the existing codebase, though the feature set required would be small. I'd be willing to implement the feature if the Devs think it's a good idea.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Zakky on December 01, 2017, 09:20:55 PM
I don't know what was the size of this siege of Alowca but from the name I am guessing it is on colonies which is too small of a sample size. Plus it is just a single siege with unknown number of different unit types. So you will need to give me more details for that one. Sounds like this Alowca was poorly prepared and got overwhelmed by gang up attacks from your story though.

The most effective siege tactic at the moment is to put your archers in skirmish and set them in the front with 1 infantry in each row with the rear having all other unit types except cavalry. Cavalry need to be set in the back to prevent them from charging into the walls.

Or if your archers outnumber enemy archers 2 to 1 and they only have a couple to few infantry units, you only send ranged units and set them in middle or back to take out infantry units.

As for out ranging your enemies that is not feasible in most cases. Almost no one runs pure R5 units and it is a dumb idea to only have an army full of SFs. Plus if your enemies have R5, it doesn't work. So give me an example of a siege that is more equal.

As for your suggestion regarding the new siege status, it looks like we just need some additional codes to the TO mechanic since TO already prevents some stuff.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Chenier on December 01, 2017, 09:41:15 PM
Weren't archers nerfed recently?

That said, I'm seeing archers being used a hell of a lot more than back in the days. I mean, those battles on EC are extremely archer heavy, barely any infantry when we consider everything. In Westgard we just annihilated a force of 20k rogues with 7k of archers (with a few ranged SF), we didn't even get a single hit on us either. Not a single melee unit in the army (there were 3 at the start of that campaign, though).

Seems like I've been noticing this trend elsewhere too. Westgard's kind of a special case because we only fight monsters, but elsewhere... doesn't feel right to see this. On EC seems like infantry's only role is to have 1 on each line so as to have the enemy waste a million arrows on a few men every round.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Zakky on December 01, 2017, 11:50:01 PM
I think monsters need to use skirmish by default and maybe cavalries should take less damage from archer fires by at least 50%.

Archers were nerfed not by a lot from all the hits I see. They were nerfed a bit. Maybe by 20% or so? They are definitely hitting a bit less than before but they still do quite a bit.

I think the biggest problem with archers is their range. Maybe lowering range of all ranged unit types by 1 would be nice.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Chenier on December 02, 2017, 02:41:12 AM
I think monsters need to use skirmish by default and maybe cavalries should take less damage from archer fires by at least 50%.

Archers were nerfed not by a lot from all the hits I see. They were nerfed a bit. Maybe by 20% or so? They are definitely hitting a bit less than before but they still do quite a bit.

I think the biggest problem with archers is their range. Maybe lowering range of all ranged unit types by 1 would be nice.

A quick non-fix would be reducing the displayed CS of monsters by 33%-50%. I don't know how other armies are faring, but we are constantly winning against monster armies that double our CS, or more, with little or no losses.

I mean, beside that, let's not get too quick to implement major game-changing modifications. Are archers really broken? 'cause if you nerf archers or buff monsters Westgard dies in a week. XD
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Zakky on December 02, 2017, 03:03:03 AM
Instead of nerfing archers, we can also just buff other unit types.

Making multiple archer hits on the same target can be addressed.

Like the first hit will be 100% but the second will be only 65% and all other hits after that will only do 30% to that target.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Chenier on December 02, 2017, 03:31:46 AM
Cavalry never really seemed worthwhile to me. Making them more resilient to archers, or some other buff, might work in increasing their appeal.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Zakky on December 02, 2017, 03:54:36 AM
Wouldn't mind people being able to recruit more of them too...
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Ketchum on December 22, 2017, 02:05:44 AM
How about drastically reducing the recruit production speed while a region has too many militias?
If many people(Population) sent out as guards, then they not farming or mining. So the production will suffer.

Sound fine to me.

Though I hope we fix that Population issue first. As many peasants(Population) unable recover for quite sometime. Example, look at Alebad city, the site of battles by many fallen realms resided there: Alebad realm, Minas Thalion and now Halcyon. I see their Production level not recover fast.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Daniel Coffey on December 30, 2017, 01:04:18 PM
Hey guys, I'm not overly clued up on all the mechanics of BM since I haven't been here so long, but I've noticed a few things certainly.

- Militia inflate low population kingdoms with CS, allowing them to survive way past their usual life expectancy. Whilst lower player kingdoms shouldn't be discouraged, it does give the impression that they aren't actually achieving anything. Just, existing.
- Archers are overused, and if it's not archers, it's SF with ranged attacks + abilities. This might not be because they're BETTER at dealing with Monsters/Undead, but it might be because they don't get killed when dealing with them. (Although I think they are perhaps a tad too effective). Which leads me to.
- Recruitment is a bitch. As a new player, I can't understand why recruitment is cantered around the capital. And is fairly gold intensive. You basically have to get hand outs to recruit even passable infantry/archers without weeks of sitting around gathering gold. As a feudal lord, you should be levying troops from your local estate, practically for nothing unless they're trained retinues. Having said that, this is a game so, I can understand why people wouldn't necessarily want to use their 30/50/15 MI with Range 2 :P

I would propose a new way of handing militia and recruitment all in one.

1) You can recruit units from any Ducal capital, or if that's not possible to code, from literally any region. Having to travel 2-3 days of real life to go to and from campaigns is not fun. Time is easily the most valuable currency in BM, and reducing red tape and paperwork on players time will help people get more stuff done. What's more, is it allows realms to expand more capably but not reducing the threat of 'too little nobles to regions', as presumably more rogues would attack.

2) The barracks that house the troops you recruit from become the militia forces of the region. In doing so, make the militia static, not depleting, and when people hire from that group, it reduces the militia amount. Have the regions pay half the usual upkeep it would cost to have those many troops deployed in mobile armies. This stops people from stacking hordes of militia in provinces that would not feasibly upkeep them, as well as putting emphasis on having trained units or SF/Cav in high gold provinces, and less trained Inf/Arc in the rural regions. More flavour friendly too.

3) Repairing equipment should be allowed in all provinces with a barracks. They can repair equipment to 100%, but reduce/improve the quality of your troops equipment based on the highest level equipment available in that province. Costs increase/decrease dependant on the skills of those local smiths. This keeps campaigns on the move, and whilst it means your regiment may come home with shoddier gear, it can allow armies to keep pushing forward against the tide of attrition.
In tandem with the above, a system that allows you to upgrade your companies gear should be a thing. I know the wiki makes out that it's because the troops aren't trained in that style of fighting, but historically speaking medieval armies used all sorts of different weapons/armour in the same regiment. Standardization was a huge problem for them that wasn't introduced until pike and shot regiments, and even then it wasn't universal. What's more, is that a character can role play their regiment as wielding 'pikes' or 'swords' even though they come from the same region. Why? Because there's nothing denoting what infantry/archers/cavalry use as weapons. Surely then upgrading their equipment is really just getting better quality versions of their current weaponry?

Hope my 2 pence doesn't sound like ranting or such, I really love the game so far, and I want to see it do better and get even more players. Thanks for reading.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Zakky on December 30, 2017, 01:30:19 PM
1) Capital recruitment is to balance the game.

There are only 2 ways to do it for BM's system I think. Either you centralize it or de-centralize it.

Centralize was the path this game has chosen to go down. Decentralizing it will make it more miserable probably. If you make all RCs local, you actually need to travel there to recruit. It will make new players even more confusing plus capitals will become less important.

2) Militias.

I think maybe allowing people to recruit them locally is fine but as long as there are militias, RCs you used to get them should remain empty until you disband them. So if you have 4 RCs with 200 men each, you can have up to 800 militias but your RCs will remain empty until you disband or lower them. This will make people choose between using them as militias or active troops. At the moment, you get endless recruits constantly.

All the problems that have surfaced recently are caused by having only 400 players. The game was never designed for so few players and it just can't adapt. It will take a very long time to fix all the issues since many don't see it as problems or they have different views on the matter. I'd recommend learning more about the game and just living with it. Do what you can with what you have. That is how you play BM.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Chenier on December 30, 2017, 06:52:10 PM
9300 CS of militia sprang up just for MOVING into a starved out townsland.

Man war has gotten incredibly lame since I last led a human war. Random free auto-defense force that can outpower most realms' entire mobile armies. Heck, many realms' combined mobile armies.

This used to be a PvP game, where mobile armies clashed with mobile armies. Now... urgh. It's like wrestling in a minefield: the best move is not to move at all. And that's incredibly lame.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Zakky on December 30, 2017, 07:03:37 PM
It ain't a pvp game anymore. More like pve at this point.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Chenier on December 30, 2017, 07:05:49 PM
Yea, I think I'll focus on Westgard. I'd rather have 30k of rogues ambush us, but know they came from a neighboring region I should have scouted, then have 10k militia ambush out, which spring out of absolutely nowhere.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Zakky on December 30, 2017, 08:05:21 PM
Literally feels like Yu-Gi-Oh. You've activated my trap card!
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Daniel Coffey on January 01, 2018, 12:31:09 PM
Thanks for the reply Zakky, I have realised that the small playerbase is cause for a number of problems, which is a shame. But that doesn't mean we should just work with what we've got, after all, this is a suggestion for dev direction :) Also, sucks to be you Chenier, I wouldn't dream of facing 2k CS at the moment, let alone 10k :P

Firstly, what I meant when I said making RCs Ducal/Region, I meant that you can just recruit from any Ducal capital or if not possible, any region, full stop. You get the full recruitment list that you're currently allowed in the capital and just allow it everywhere. Perhaps restricting it to any city could work? But currently I feel too much emphasis is on the capital, which restricts nation growth, which restricts player vs player interactions.

I understand about making them all local though, that would be even worse :P

Secondly, in what scenario would you have 4 RCs in any one territory for the militia with the system I suggested? That would equal to around 200+ gold upkeep per week, at half upkeep costs. I can't see that being economical at all. However, I do see what you mean, and I think it's another good suggestion. Having a slider/cap for RCs so you pick between militia/troops could work... I see one problem though.

Everyone will just put max militia in every province that isn't really efficient archers/SF at the current rate. Maybe 1 or 2 RCs for INF just to use tactically but no more.

I had another idea, if you'd hear me out. Why not detach militia from noble management altogether? Create a new building named 'Guardhouse' or 'Muster Field' or something, very cheap to start off but more expensive as you upgrade it. It creates a small group of 'peasant militia', much like the peasant mobs that attack you if you raid regions and such. That way, in a large group the militia could beat 10-20 monsters/undead, but would be hopeless against real soldiers. Exactly what a militia would be.

I would suggest an upgrade path like 10/25/50/100 militia. I doubt 100 will do much against any mobile army, but it will deter small raiding and rogue groups, which is what a militia should do. Upkeep wise for the buildings? I'm unsure what would be considered balanced.

Again, just another 2 pence, I hope the suggestions get taken in. Going back and forth about perceived problems with no suggestions won't get anyone anywhere, but I feel this community as a whole cares about the game and therefore these suggestion threads are for the better more often than not.
Title: Re: Different way to nerf militias
Post by: Chenier on January 02, 2018, 01:36:33 AM
I don't like militia at all. Used to be only about preventing random raiding parties from targeting key regions like cities, thanks to the high walls to back the up and the large income to sustain a lot.

Now? Random regions spawn them on their own for free. Free militia that auto-spawns with more CS than many realms' mobile armies combined.

It's not PvP anymore when most of the CS lies upon auto-generated armies.