Topics

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.

Details:

• 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).

2

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.
Details:

• 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• Add text blurb on Unit Settings Page "Withdraw after [input] % friendly forces have fallen or withdrawn (1)"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.
Details:

• 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.
Details:

• 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.
Details:

• 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.

3

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

4

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.