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 - Chenier

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 483
Feature Requests / Share scout reports with whole realm
« on: Today at 02:59:11 PM »
    Title: Share scout reports with whole realm

    Summary/Details: Either make it so that scout reports are no longer just shared with one's army, but with all armies or the whole realm, or at least give the option to the scouter to share it with either whole realm or just his army.

    Benefits: The point of sharing the scout reports only with the army was, I believe, to reduce the ability of the general to overmeddle in the armies' affairs, making marshals rubber stampers. I think those days are long gone, and that this mechanic discourages devolution more than it encourages it, since only a one-army force (typically led by a general/marshal) will have access to all of the realm's scout reports, while realms that spread the military leadership over multiple armies will be faced with the dilemma of either partial information, or sending scout reports to the whole realm by linking them manually. I don't really think there's any reason to limit the scout report sharing to just one army anymore, but if there's desire to keep that, having the option to share to the whole realm would be appreciated. Armies often operate in the same general area, and I don't really see a reason to force people to scout the same regions twice for two armies to have the big picture (or to force them to spam the "to realm" channel, barely any better).

    Possible Downsides or Exploits: The potential return of meddler generals, I guess? But I really don't think we are "there" any more. With the declined player base, most realms don't really have the nobles for multiple armies anyways, and I don't feel like this behavior has been a problem in quite some time. Besides, such people could already order people to spam the "to realm" channel anyways.

Dwilight / Re: Monster Problems
« on: Yesterday at 03:25:43 AM »
Rogues do tend to establish some behaviors. Despite many tweaks to these, for example, we in Westgard know one thing: Monsters will rally in Sabadell. They just frigging love that region. I tell you, if we could just build walls there... nah, nevermind, we'd never get a chance to repair them. XD

But yea, they often move around too. We've  often seen them completely abandon takeovers without us needing to confront them head on. You win some, you lose some, just gotta try to make sure you keep a path back to your capital so that your army doesn't lose many times in a row and that you don't get cut off from your refit centers, as these are harder to recover from.

Realms will need to cooperate for optimal results. Militarily, yes, but also just communicating.

But it's inevitable that the East will look a lot more like swiss cheese than it used to.

Dwilight / Re: Monster Problems
« on: June 21, 2017, 02:28:14 AM »
Sea travelling rogues are to islands what normal rogues are to non-islands. Island realms are no worse off than landlocked realms, but simply lost much of the advantage. If we look at the West; Westgard now, but Barca, Terran, Caerwyn, Niselur, and the score of other realms that have been there, they too faced numberless rogues that they could not see coming. Just because sea zones aren't scoutable doesn't make them much different from having vast land borders that just aren't scoutable in a significant manner either, if not only because of the unreasonnable manpower it would take to have nobles in place to scout all potential routes.

Does Westgard scout all of its borders all of the time? No... it's impossible, and even if it was, it's pointless. They come from all the place, all the time. You only really need to know details of how much they are and what they are doing while they are adjacent to your army.

The realms have less nobles, yes, that's true. But the rogue forces are also much smaller. 15k? Seems like that's the average force all over... that's not very threatening. Yea you may lose some regions during the whack-a-mole hunt, but as soon as enough realms lose enough regions, they'll stop spawning. Back in the days, it often got much, much higher, and they didn't start calming down just because realms started losing. They were tweaked many times to make the odds less impossible, but still, overall, people accomplished great things.

If nobles care enough about their realms, they should survive with much more than the colonists first really dreamed of. Regions may be lost, but since rogues now mostly spawn from the largest contiguous rogue region, having small rogue clumps here and there shouldn't be as bad as it was back in the days. Realms would be better off accepting diminished states. Perhaps putting some gold and troops into making their larger states more feasible.

For example, Avernus wanted to relocate. Helping them settle in Itau, Golden Farrow, Paisly, or Candiels could possibly help kill some of these monsters before they even get a chance to swim East, thus allowing you to regain some of your lost regions.

Feature Requests / Re: Region page scout report link
« on: June 20, 2017, 02:56:54 AM »
I believe if you look at the old (now "political") map, it will give you links to scout reports, when available.

Dwilight / Re: Monster Problems
« on: June 20, 2017, 01:35:39 AM »
I think I've elaborated enough on why Madina's (non) history displeases me, as well as its geography. You mention the maps, you should note that for the most part, they didn't remove Madina and Fissoa, they just crunched you closer to your neighbors by eliminating the vast deserts and seas that divide you, while also splitting the both of you farther away from each other because adjacent capitals is just a terrible thing.

If you want to fight monsters, then you should be delighted, because that's what you are getting. So what if you lose a few regions in the process? You'll end up reaching an equilibrium determined by your density and skill. If you want to argue that you were somehow incapable of doing anything in the East because of the monsters in the West... you'll have a long road ahead of you to convince me of that. You could have chosen not to hold Candiels, and not to push for the Fields, and Agl, and everything else you've tried to do over there, that would have been much easier, but that's a choice you made. In 2016, so not quite "IRL yearS", really. Before that, the West did not throw rogues at you.

The code will not destroy Madina unless you truly, amazingly, suck. Do you think you are the firsts to be whacked by monsters? These are rookie numbers. Madina was MADE in far worse conditions, and numberless realms, after that, were MADE in much, much, much worse conditions. Many grew to be superpowers. Think Astrum has a nice empty playing field starting out? D'Hara? What do you think Westgard has been up to all that time, since the West re-opened?

The whining is unfounded. Once density lowers, the number of hordes will decrease. Soon enough, once everybody gets their act together and finishes off the hordes they got, they should see a nice period of calm. Rogue spawns are governed by density and every realm (or about?) lost a bunch of regions. And not only will the waves thin out for a while, until everyone takes back all these regions, but those who are hardest hit will receive the least persistence, because these migrant monsters focus on lowest-density realms and no-lord regions. The code is set up in a way to do non-lethal damage. Any realm that dies to the monsters deserves it for being so terrible, because only one realm, Westgard, lacks any chokepoint or other geographical advantage against them.

BM General Discussion / Re: Imprisonment. (because of battles)
« on: June 18, 2017, 01:48:06 AM »
Opportunism. If the opportunity presents itself... better take it!

Unless you happen to be captured with empty hands, the ransom is generally payable for a moderate sum on the third turn (or is it third day?). Staying the full 7 days only happens if: you had 0 gold on hand, or just about, and your judge doesn't care enough about you to make deals with their judge, or you are a cheapskate, or you are a really wealthy noble carrying over a thousand gold and you really don't want that much dough going right to the enemy.

Beluaterra / Re: Official Akkan hate thread
« on: June 18, 2017, 01:44:58 AM »
I don't think dramatic finales are a forte of the invasions, in general.

Dwilight / Re: Monster Problems
« on: June 17, 2017, 01:57:46 PM »
Whack-a-mole, buddies.

Dwilight / Re: Monster Problems
« on: June 17, 2017, 03:27:21 AM »
Tell us how you really feel Chenier... I have a hard time having a problem with Madina and Fissoa when Astrum and Swordfell are around.

Dwilights been a terrible continent for a long time though.

Astrum and Swordfell... what's wrong with them? Seriously. They both interact with their neighbors in both friendly and hostile ways and are willing to take risks. Plus, they are both in dynamic regions, with lots of in-range neigbhors. Why should I dislike them? Also Astrum has a ton of nobles, so that entitles them to having a lot of regions. Swordfell may not have many accomplishments under their belts, but Astrum has too many to count. And even Swordfell's few make them appear like the record-breaking dynamism compared to Madina and Fissoa's track records. Fissoa and Madina may have geographies that largely hampers intervening in the outside world, but it's not like they've really made much effort in that regards in the last... real life decade...

This opinion isn't even anything personal. I just feel that such realms are a dead weight to BM and that by luring the unwary to join them, such as newcommers who don't know any better, it hurts the game overall.

Beluaterra / Re: the Republic of Fronen
« on: June 16, 2017, 03:14:26 PM »

Beluaterra / Re: the Republic of Fronen
« on: June 16, 2017, 02:48:19 PM »
The hell is Fronen doing in Rines?  :o

Beluaterra / Re: Official Akkan hate thread
« on: June 16, 2017, 02:44:55 PM »
Nope, I still think they still get their charge bonus or haven't been nerfed(enough), as despite having to go through three lines of troops it kept doing that 50,000 spread damage that wipes out 100 man units in a single turn of combat.

I assure you, they were quite nerfed since their first appearance in the third invasion.  ;)

Beluaterra / Re: Official Akkan hate thread
« on: June 15, 2017, 03:08:53 PM »
Daimon cavalry has always been OP, and giving them an appropriate CS is likely no easy task.

I remember when they first appeared... they'd be thrown over the walls every turn, which resulted in them getting their charge bonus every turn. I believe they have been seriously nerfed since, because the destruction was horrifying.

Development / Re: Upgraded Routefinder
« on: June 15, 2017, 03:06:36 PM »
You can already preset a next destination, so that covers a whole day's worth of movement, at worst, and up to a week's worth of travel.

Auto-pilot would dissuade people from logging in (at least daily), because "it'll be a while before I arrive anyways". It would also reduce interaction because people could just plot destination, and then not update the path along the way, because everyone else is already pre-set, forcing the military leaders to just go ahead with what was decided ahead of time.

I don't really see how this would be beneficial for inactive players anyways. If you miss a turn and start traveling late, auto-pilot won't give you back that lag time. It would remain the marshal's job to make sure the army doesn't spread over too many regions and, when it starts to stretch too much, issue a pause to let people catch up. Auto-pilot would even reduce his ability to issue pauses. And don't forget that many things can interrupt travel or affect travel times, and auto-pilot is likely to just make people less reactive to them. The guy with 10 cavalry, 5 scouts, and vanguard settings on auto-travel for hundreds of miles will likely arrive much faster than the guy who has 100 infantry, no scouts, and forgot to switch out of sentry mode, likely increasing the army stretch. If you miss 50% of your turns due to not logging in, then you'll still miss about 50% of the battles, because you didn't set travel on time. Auto-travel wouldn't improve this the least.

East Island / Re: Funeral Games
« on: June 14, 2017, 02:23:07 PM »
This is how EC, and BM, used to be. Realms engaged in cosntant warfare against other realms. This is how BM should be played.

haha, that's not how I remember things to be. I remember mostly a lot of gridlock alliance blocs, eternal peace, and gangbangs against any and all rabble rousers. And the dev team and Tom needling to repeatedly prod players with soft and hard incentives to break the stagnation and do stuff, a few occasions spawning rather serious threats from Tom against involved rulers. AT was the worst, but I think EC was pretty bad too. All had some good moments in at least some parts, but I'm not sure I'd have qualified those at the norm, or how it "used to be". EC I think had a tendency to have long rotations between lasting wars and lasting peace, while AT was really more stagnation than anything. The introduction of a "too much peace" mechanic wasn't happenstance. It didn't stay because it had its share of faults, but it did underline a serious problem of the time.

BM's metagame has evolved much since. There are more smaller scale wars, more wars in general, and more leniency to trouble makers. Back then, a realm doing a sneak attack on its neighbor was likely to result in 10 realms ganging up to destroy them, while now there are more greater odds of neighbors letting them fight it out or, if joining, trying to even the odds more than making them as lopsided as possible.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 483