Army War Chest Options

[Anaris]

There is a simple way to mitigate the exploits, and it's already handled in the current army war chest code:

Paying for things out of the war chest costs twice as much as paying for them out of pocket.

[Indirik]

Mrh? So... when it tells me that repairs cost 40 gold, but I got 20 back from the war chest, that it takes 40 gold out of the war chest in order to give me that 20 gold?

[Anaris]

Mrh? So... when it tells me that repairs cost 40 gold, but I got 20 back from the war chest, that it takes 40 gold out of the war chest in order to give me that 20 gold?

Hrm. I swear I remember that it did that, and I remember talking about it in dev channels, but now that I look at the code, it says it doesn't.

Weird.

Well, regardless of whether it does it now, it remains a viable option for mitigating the exploits enabled by this.

[Dante Silverfire]

Well, regardless of whether it does it now, it remains a viable option for mitigating the exploits enabled by this.

Why even have a warchest then?

I thought the goal of a war-chest was to transfer costs of supporting units to the sponsor from the knights.

If repairs cost 40 gold without a war chest, why would I want to pay a total of 60 gold, just so that my knights only have to pay 20 gold?

I think IF such a feature was in place, I'd definitely want to know about it because I'd stop using war chests immediately. They're essentially counter productive.

[Anaris]

Why even have a warchest then?

I thought the goal of a war-chest was to transfer costs of supporting units to the sponsor from the knights.

If repairs cost 40 gold without a war chest, why would I want to pay a total of 60 gold, just so that my knights only have to pay 20 gold?

Can you re-run your math for me? I get you paying 40 gold and your knight paying 20 gold.

I think IF such a feature was in place, I'd definitely want to know about it because I'd stop using war chests immediately. They're essentially counter productive.

Right, because there's absolutely no benefit to a feature that allows a single wealthy noble—who can stay in his region the entire time if desired—to pick up the tab for an entire army, simply because it costs more to do so than it would to painstakingly transfer all the money required to each of the nobles in question ahead of time (never mind calculating who would need how much).

[Indirik]

You may be confusing this with the global treasury for guilds/religions.

[Anaris]

You may be confusing this with the global treasury for guilds/religions.

You may be right.

[Dante Silverfire]

Can you re-run your math for me? I get you paying 40 gold and your knight paying 20 gold.

That's correct. Instead of 40 gold for the knight 0 for me.

Its 40 gold for me, 20 gold for the knight with a total of 60 gold.

Right, because there's absolutely no benefit to a feature that allows a single wealthy noble—who can stay in his region the entire time if desired—to pick up the tab for an entire army, simply because it costs more to do so than it would to painstakingly transfer all the money required to each of the nobles in question ahead of time (never mind calculating who would need how much).

There is *A* benefit from doing so. However, if a realm is seeking the absolute most efficient method of gold utilization for maximum army strength, they would never use a warchest. Instead, the proper method would be to evenly spread out gold to nobles as needed prior to a campaign such that they can afford the costs ahead of time.

I realize that takes more time to calculate what nobles need, but it is also not unheard of. Realms such as Aurvandil have taken very precise methods of ensuring maximum army strength through extreme cooperation.

For new features, we have to consider that this very well could happen, not just that a normal realm wouldn't do it. I certainly would make sure to implement it while making zero use of the warchest should such be implemented. I'd much rather my gold be used efficiently if I plan to fight a 6 month to 2 year real life war, where gold becomes an issue long term. This is also much more reasonable to use the war chest assuming an abundance of nobles (ie. a lot of players). However, the current game state lacks players, so efficiency is paramount.

[Anaris]

That's correct. Instead of 40 gold for the knight 0 for me.

Its 40 gold for me, 20 gold for the knight with a total of 60 gold.

Oh, I see; sorry, I was misreading it as "I will have to pay 60 gold, and my knight 20."

There is *A* benefit from doing so. However, if a realm is seeking the absolute most efficient method of gold utilization for maximum army strength, they would never use a warchest. Instead, the proper method would be to evenly spread out gold to nobles as needed prior to a campaign such that they can afford the costs ahead of time.

Sure. Who ever said that a new feature of this sort had to be designed to improve maximum gold efficiency?

The best kinds of feature improve usability and reduce the need for micromanaging, but at a modest reduction in cost-efficiency.

For new features, we have to consider that this very well could happen, not just that a normal realm wouldn't do it. I certainly would make sure to implement it while making zero use of the warchest should such be implemented. I'd much rather my gold be used efficiently if I plan to fight a 6 month to 2 year real life war, where gold becomes an issue long term. This is also much more reasonable to use the war chest assuming an abundance of nobles (ie. a lot of players). However, the current game state lacks players, so efficiency is paramount.

You're welcome to do that. Indeed, I would be glad to see some armies try that.

And then have everyone assigned to them complain about always having to deal with the manual gold redistribution, and look enviously at the other army, where the Duke just dumps 1000 gold in the war chest so they don't have to worry about it.

[Dante Silverfire]

The best kinds of feature improve usability and reduce the need for micromanaging, but at a modest reduction in cost-efficiency.

Agreed, I just don't consider "double" to be "modest."

Perhaps a 50% or 25% increase in cost is "modest."

So, if it costs 40 gold without a warchest for the knight.

50%: Knight pays 20 gold, Sponsor pays 30 gold (20 gold + 10 gold or 50% of 20 gold)
25%: Knight pays 20 gold, Sponsor pays 25 gold (20 gold + 5 gold or 25% of 20 gold)

You're welcome to do that. Indeed, I would be glad to see some armies try that.

And then have everyone assigned to them complain about always having to deal with the manual gold redistribution, and look enviously at the other army, where the Duke just dumps 1000 gold in the war chest so they don't have to worry about it.

I don't think those complaints will be as much of an issue for those armies that want the success. This is primarily for smaller realms that NEED the efficiency to beat larger realms. Large realms, don't need efficiency because the game mechanics give them *most* of the advantages. All else equal.

I think the number of players just makes efficiency important enough to matter right now.

[fodder]

i actually want to know how much shipping cost is subsidised via warchest atm I think it's 50%... need to read the text the next time I do it..... because it's a fair chunk of change.. and might be OP as it is. - money not spent on ship = money to spend on wages.

i suspect if you give a default possible range of between 0-50% or some such... perhaps some more capped than others, it'll be ok.

stuff like training doesn't really cost much and so a range of 0-100% is more than ok.

repairs tends to be more time consuming than money consuming.. - not saying it's not expensive.. but if you can afford that unit, you can usually afford the repairs. it's the sitting around for days that's the bigger problem.

travelling (which basically mean ships) should have a lower cap.. because gold cost is high.

recruitment/wages is out of bounds. no question.

For this to work, this feature is really more about how to allow a sponsor to not pay for certain stuff... than allowing sponsors to pay for more stuff.

[Anaris]

Agreed, I just don't consider "double" to be "modest."

Perhaps a 50% or 25% increase in cost is "modest."

I could get behind that. The precise cost can be looked at and tweaked as needed to make sure it's not too onerous, but still makes a difference.

[Eldargard]

Its common practice to not post exploits on the forums, beyond the basic explanation I gave. If the devs want a more in-depth look at my opinions on an exploit I'm willing to send it to them privately.

I like the idea of war chest options, but limiting it to specific percentages such as 50% is very much needed. If you let those percentages go too high then realms like Aurvandil with extremely high levels of cooperation (that dwarfs their neighbors) gain a huge advantage. While some may not see this as a problem, others do, including myself.

It seems a dumb practice to me. If any player or players out there know of ways to exploit the game, I would suggest that making the potential exploit publicly known so that it can be fixed and/or monitored is preferable to keeping that information secretly to your self. Go ahead and feel all smug and self righteous but I can not at all agree with your reasoning.

[Indirik]

OK, let's not get into the philosophical debate of "full disclosure" vs. "security through obscurity", please. If you want to debate it, take it private, or move to a separate OT thread.

[Eldargard]

Very well. Then back to the Topic of this thread. Could anyone who is not determined to keep knowledge of game exploits to themselves willing to explain, plainly, why my suggestion is so unbalancing? I am not saying that it is not and I am not so vested in my suggestion that I will contend any reason without consideration. I would, however, love to hear a real reason.