Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Axton

Pages: [1]
Feature Requests / Under Debate: Declare Support
« on: June 22, 2018, 11:03:58 PM »
Title: Declare Support

Summary: Allow players to have their characters declare support for a council member in a manner similar to but inverse from protests.

  • Add Declare Support action choice to Politics Page
  • Create Declare Support page with an explanation and inputs akin to the Disagree or Protest page.
  • Have the Declare Support and Protest options feed into a calculator to determine if that turn the council member has more support or disagreement.
  • Provide extra honor/prestige or remove honor/prestige according to how much stronger the support/disagreement that turn was.

Benefits: Allows characters to support actions by council members and prevents vocal minority from draining honor/prestige from a council member who is supported by a majority of the realm.

Possible Downsides/Exploits: Possibility of honor/prestige farming from repeated Declare Support actions with nothing to warrant it (actions to warrant would include things like taking actions agreed with or to counter protests from dissatisfied realm members).

Feature Requests / Under Debate: Advancing to the Rear
« on: June 07, 2018, 11:16:59 PM »
We're not retreating, we're just advancing in a different direction!

Title: Army Retreat Setting
Summary: A setting for unit retreat based on overall percentage of remaining friendly unit strength as opposed to just the player's individual unit.
  • Modify the retreat text blurb on Unit Settings Page to "Withdraw after unit suffers
    [input] % casualties (30%-75%)(1)"
  • Add text blurb on Unit Settings Page "Withdraw after [input] % friendly forces have fallen or withdrawn (1)"
  • In battle have unit withdraw after the number of friendly forces still engaged in the battle have been reduced by the new input.
Benefits: Allows marshals additional tactical decisions to maintain army strength.
Possible Downsides or Exploits: Less death in a losing army, potentially longer grind of fighting enemy forces.

Title: Retreat from Stronger Enemy
Summary: A setting for unit retreat based on relative combat strengths of the armies.
  • Add text blurb on Unit Settings Page "Withdraw after the combat strength of friendly forces has fallen below [input] % of the enemy force (1)"
  • In battle have unit withdraw after the combat strength of friendly forces still engaged in the battle has been reduced to below the input percentage of enemy forces' combat strength.
Benefits: Allows marshals additional tactical decisions to maintain army strength.
Possible Downsides or Exploits: Less death in a losing army, potentially longer grind of fighting enemy forces.

Title: Retreat Across the Field
Summary: When withdrawing or fleeing from a battle, a unit will cross back to the edge of the field before finally being removed from the field. Attackers may pursue if free to do so.
  • Add text blurb on Unit Settings Page "When withdrawing your men will [retreat orderly/retreat quickly/flee]"
  • When fleeing a battle due to unit routing or reaching withdrawing criteria with the flee option selection, a unit will move two spaces backwards each turn until it reaches the edge of the battlefield, at which point it will be removed from the battle. While fleeing a unit will have no defensive bonus from formation.
  • When retreating quickly, a unit will alternate between moving two spaces and one space backwards each turn until it reaches the edge of the battlefield, at which point it will be removed from the battle. While retreating quickly a unit will receive a halved defensive bonus from formation.
  • When retreating orderly, a unit will move one space backwards each turn until it reaches the edge of the battlefield, at which point it will be removed from the battle. While retreating orderly a unit will receive it's full defensive bonus from formation.
  • If Army Retreat Setting or Retreat from Stronger Enemy features are implemented, a unit fleeing or withdrawing does not count towards forces or CS still in the battle.
  • A unit that is fleeing
  • Any enemy force capable of attacking a unit that is fleeing or withdrawing may do so.
Benefits: Varies end game of battles. Allows attackers to inflict further punishment on a losing force.
Possible Downsides or Exploits: Can result in more extensive losses for a retreating force and might just be an absolute bitch to program, I can't be sure.

Title: Archers Fall Back to Maintain Range
Summary: Add a setting for nobles with archer units to set a minimum range from the enemy to maintain.
  • Add text blurb on Unit Settings Page "Your men will maintain [input] spaces from the enemy (2)" for nobles commanding units of archers.
  • Add footnote on Unit Settings Page "(2) Note that this setting will not cause your unit to withdraw from the field" for nobles commanding units of archers.
  • During a battle if an enemy is less than the input number of spaces distant from the unit of archers the unit will move back one space to maintain range unless it has reached the edge of the map.
Benefits: Increases tactical options for battles.
Possible Downsides or Exploits: Might be a bit hard to program.

While both have appeal to me, I think only one of Army Retreat Setting or Retreat from Stronger Army should be implemented.

Feature Requests / Re: Reply to List for Realm Council
« on: May 25, 2018, 03:12:11 PM »
I would just love a "reply to whoever is on this message" option.

It would make it so much easier to have discussions between people...
Yes, please.

Feature Requests / Re: Remove magic from EC (Stable)
« on: May 25, 2018, 03:11:19 PM »
I care less about the presence or absence of magic and more that there is a set policy or mechanic and that it is rigorously adhered to, which based on the comments seems not to be the case.

Feature Requests / Re: Free Up Information
« on: May 21, 2018, 05:54:09 PM »
If you are Marshal/Vice Marshal you do have access to the 'Command' page where it says 'Army Information'.
This will give you exactly all the details of the units in your army. Men, locations, readiness, strength,..
Aren't you just looking for this?
Was more looking to other realms when you had relevant intel on them.

To visualize it better, this is what it would look like:

Why inclusion of server time vice time to next turn?

Feature Requests / Re: Free Up Information
« on: May 21, 2018, 12:11:40 AM »
Title: Day-Night Cycle on Every Page

1. The world globe in the navigation frame indicates whether it is day or night for BM.
2. I am interested on making that info more broadly available like you mention.

1. Did not see that. Like, at all. It's less than clear.
2. Well, alright then. Like I said, I think the footer is the best location for that.

Title: Linking Pages

All good, give me exact pages where you want to see it happen.
I'm not in favour of linking everything (like signatures) though. That will downright look ugly.

Realm Details Page, Duchy Details Page, Region Details Page, Character Page (the one with the portrait), Realm Hierarchy Page, Diplomatic Treaties Page, Realm Government Page, Realm Laws Page, Your Bans and Fines (I don't know if it has links already, mine is empty), Family/Player Details Page, Route Adviser Scribe Notes, Battle Reports

Title: Expanded Character Pages

Titles have already been added.
I'm not fan of including military information on here actually. It is possible no doubt. But this page is more meant as a biographic kind of page, rather than actively monitor for military ends. At least that was my intention, would like to hear Delvin/Vita on this.
I will add screenshots of the prototype of this page I have currently going on. (see below)

They look good. I would like some way to rather quickly finding that sort of information beyond going through all the regions. Maybe an addition to the Realm Details page instead that provides all current posesed information had on the locations and strengths of that realms units?

Title: More Useful Add Recruits Page
Definitely in favour of this one. Good call.

I make many. I'm also humble. You can tell because I'm telling you.  ;)

Title: Merging Information Pages
I'm a little hesitant on this one, for I do not think the benefits are that big.
Right now people can recognize the pages directly from their information screen, while if you put 'Your Status Page' people will not directly know what is clubbed together on this page and what is not.

This is probably the one that provides the least benefits of my suggestions, admittedly, but I generally favor consolidation, considering it more efficient. If there isn't a reason to really split it out (which I don't really think there is) then I think it should be merged in.

Either way, on all of the subjects above I will need Delvin/Vita to give their opinion. Some are obviously small works for a big win, while others I'm still hesitant about.
As I told you before, we appreciate all the thought you put into it, a new pair of eyes on things is always good.

I like the designs, especially the handsome devil in the portrait.

Feature Requests / Under Debate: Free Up Information
« on: May 17, 2018, 06:25:33 PM »
Title: Day-Night Cycle on Every Page
Summary: Place the whether it is night or day (for relevant continents), the season (for relevant continents), and the time to the next turn in the footer underneath what region one is in.
Details: Add the information from the summary to the footer underneath the current region. Move statuses such as travelling to the right of the current region instead of beneath.
Benefits: Allows players to easily find the information already readily available on some but not all pages.
Possible Downsides or Exploits: None

Title: Linking Pages
Summary: Link information pages to other relevant pages.
Details: Make the name of a realm, duchy, region, or character a link to the realm, duchy, region, or character information page on other information pages as well as in the signatures of messages.
Benefits: Quicker navigation between related information pages.
Possible Downsides or Exploits: None

Title: Expanded Character Pages
Summary: Include already available information on character pages.
Details: Add titles (along with links to the applicable information pages) to Character Pages (the ones that currently are an editable text box and a portrait). Add information on commanded units such as troop numbers and CS if relevant intelligence is available (e.g. being in an army you command, having a scouting report, etc.).
Benefits: Easier locating of information about a specific character.
Possible Downsides or Exploits: None

Title: More Useful Add Recruits Page
Summary: Provide all otherwise readily available information useful for recruitment on the Add Recruits Page
Details: Add a cost analysis for the recruitment showing how much gold will be spent in the purchase (paying your old men + how many * cost per man = cost) to give an estimate before purchasing. Add information on max unit size from Military Adviser page to Add Recruits page.
Benefits: Easier determining of cost and max unit size at moment of recruiting soldiers.
Possible Downsides or Exploits: None

Title: Merging Information Pages
Summary: Merge Your Bans and Fines, Your Duels, Your Guilds, Your Message Groups pages into Your Status Page.
Details: Append information found on Your Bans and Fines, Your Duels, Your Guilds, Your Message Groups pages to Your Status Page. Remove Your Bans and Fines, Your Duels, Your Guilds, Your Message Groups pages
Benefits: More readily accessing of various information and removing need to open multiple pages to gather information.
Possible Downsides or Exploits: None

Development / Re: Fortifications
« on: May 12, 2018, 12:45:08 AM »
The city or stronghold is the castle. The rural region is the countryside. There isn't a castle in a rural region.

That may not be how you've interpreted it, but that is canonically how the BattleMaster universe operates.
Then why have a separate lord for each? An estate with a fortified home, maybe, but the point of the lord is that he was needed to manage lands further out and protect them. If they can't protect their lands worth a damn, then they don't have a purpose.

I mean, we do have that. But it loses the main benefit of cavalry in BM: their charge.
They can still charge once the gate house has been taken, and they can still charge during a sally forth.

And it is not one you will be able to build, because in BattleMaster, a castle is effectively what a Stronghold region is.
It still makes no sense. You would build castles on your frontiers to guard against enemy attack, but the strongholds are cities are frequently towards the core of the kingdom, assuming it's large enough to have a core. Hell, it makes no sense to call most of the various realms independent kingdoms. Maybe petty kingdoms for a few, but a lot of realms seem to be the size of a county at best based on what you're saying.

Development / Re: Fortifications
« on: May 10, 2018, 10:59:23 PM »
First of all, fortifications are necessarily an abstraction. To be truly accurate, fortifications in any region type besides a city or stronghold would have to be around a bunch of smaller enclaves rather than one monolithic wall around a single place.
Not entirely true. If a force remains within the walls of their castle (and it is conceivable for there to only be one within a given region), that would leave attacking forces free to loot and pillage the country side, but at the same time, the attackers can't move on further into their enemy's territory until they had dealt with the defenders lest they emerge behind them and catch the attackers in a pincer with defenders from a further in castle.

Second of all, what regions you can and can't build fortifications in is very heavily influenced by game balance, as opposed to historical accuracy. It used to be possible to build palisades in any region, but this caused cavalry to become effectively useless.
That can be changed by allowing what I proposed. Cavalry can go around tearing up the countryside while the defenders hide behind the wall and then are very useful if the defenders decide to sally forth. Further, if we have it so that the walls, once taken, allow the cavalry in through the gate where they can start ripping up the defenders within the walls.

Third of all, in real life you'd also be able to straight-up build a city in a region that's now a rural, and that is not, and will never be possible in BattleMaster. Similarly, some kinds of fortifications will not ever be supported in some places.
Cities aren't just built out nowhere. They start as a settlement that is desirable to reside at for one reason or another and grow until they become cities. Typically, this was because they were at a location which facilitated trade, like river forks, as trade hubs afforded convenient locations for artisans to build their shops. Sure, you can build a structure just about anywhere, but a collection of buildings does not make a city. A population does. This stands in stark contrast to fortifications which are built and staffed to defend an area of import to someone. Unlike a city, which grows organically, a castle is a more deliberate structure.

All that said, I am interested in ways to make fortifications more interesting than they are today—both harder to walk over, and supporting more complex interactions. I have some changes on the drawing board to how food is handled that should make sieges a genuine possibility, and once that's true, it opens up new options for making city assaults harder.
Well, you've got my recommendations. Lock in food stores for the duration of a siege, allow the defenders to choose whether or not to sally forth, attackers can't attack without siege equipment, allow them fortifications to be built anywhere. Other things like murder holes in the gatehouses or oil on the walls are good ideas for addons, but those are kind of predicated on an actual siege mechanic being built.

If differing levels of fortification limits are really considered necessary, then maybe we can have limits on the number of redundant walls there are for certain areas.

Development / Fortifications
« on: May 10, 2018, 05:34:40 AM »
Can the fortifications get a revamp? As it stands, it makes zero sense. Anything beyond a motte and bailey is confined to heavy population centers which isn't even historically accurate. Cities, while fortified, weren't castles. A key concept in castle building minimizing paths of approach, where as a city needs numerous paths of approach to allow for easy movement of trade. That's typically why the city became so prosperous. As it stands, you can't build more than a palisade in mountainous terrain when, if one takes a cursory look at history, a mountain was one of the most preferred places to build a castle. On top of all this, it seems that the lower level fortification will only barely hinder an enemy force, making them a completely useless feature for a region. Without even a sturdy battering ram, no one should be able to penetrate a palisade, but that doesn't seem to stop them anyways. It's why things like sieges happen, where you camp out in front of the enemy fortress until they starve or sally forth.

I think max fortification levels should be raised to the maximum everywhere and do away with the silly notion of a "stronghold region", whatever the real life equivalent is supposed to be likely never existed, and without something for the siege or maybe a spy to open the gates, the enemy gets to just sit there, not attack unless the defenders sally forth. On the flip side, the defenders don't get resupplied until the besieging army is scared off.

Pages: [1]