Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

On a side note, I don't think a true military power is going to whittle down a turtling player eventually. The attacker needs more supply than the defender, and the defender also has the advantage that he will be able to consistenly utilize his highest level units,  whereas the attackers needs to go home to resupply.

You could, I believe, resolve the escaping unit problem by allowing units to barricade the surroundings, meaning that they will stop any further movement of enemy troops through bordering hexes that doesn't consist of attacking the blockading unit or running away.

 

[IronyOwl]

Say you were a dog-man. If you had non-retractible lupine claws, wouldn't you say that'd make it hard to manipulate fine objects and comfortably hold certain things meant for humans, such as guns?

I'm not sure what this is in relation to, but not particularly. Lupine claws aren't that excessive, from my experience, and not many human objects explicitly require flat or short fingers. Maybe if they prevented proper formation of a fist?

On a side note, I don't think a true military power is going to whittle down a turtling player eventually. The attacker needs more supply than the defender, and the defender also has the advantage that he will be able to consistenly utilize his highest level units,  whereas the attackers needs to go home to resupply.

I've actually been thinking about this, and the way I have it set up currently I'm not sure long-range war is even viable... and the game map is intended to make all war long-range. I might need to let Supply stack indefinitely or something just to let you go to war with anything that isn't a neighbor in the first place.

Alternatively, maybe supply ships/caravans could do something. War isn't intended to let one player "win" and conquer another entirely, so I'm not concerned about that. But it should probably be possible for an attacker to "win" and get something out of it beyond experience (which, remember, would be less than the defender would get assuming the attacker has a stronger force). I don't particularly mind them having to prepare for an attack for it to be successful, though essentially having every unit die every battle in addition to normal casualties might be a fairly hectic pace.

I dunno. Maybe I could make raids about winning the battle and save Supply whittling for when two players are willing to genuinely lock horns over a location.

You could, I believe, resolve the escaping unit problem by allowing units to barricade the surroundings, meaning that they will stop any further movement of enemy troops through bordering hexes that doesn't consist of attacking the blockading unit or running away.

Potentially. Just adding a zone of control type thing where they auto-attack any unit trying to slip past them unless ordered not to could be simpler.

I was more thinking of what happens when two units are adjacent, the attacker is faster than the defender, and the defender is trying to get away, though. Currently you have to move into an enemy's space, meaning even a slow enemy has some potential to dodge engagement just by moving erratically. Maybe that could be a feature rather than a bug, though I imagine it'd get rather frustrating to have slippery raiders or scouts refusing to be caught. Probably pretty amusing for the raiders themselves, but since all "getting caught" does is cost them Supply or at worst send them packing, that might be too much benefit for too little risk. Or maybe you just have to decide between sturdy defenders and outriders to catch them in the field? Especially if I made city supply range an autoengagement range.

[10ebbor10]

Maybe you could add pillaging as a mechanic, but that supports raiding more than anything else.

Other options are adding NPC villages, supply caravans and supply ouposts, which all would prevent decay, and perhaps military outpust that can heal.

Also, the defender still has a descive advantage. He starts using more troops, while the enemy already suffers from attrition.

[Rolepgeek]

Pillaging is a thing in Civ V. You break the improvement that's on a tile and get some gold for it.

[10ebbor10]

Is this civ V the firum game? Hadn't noticed it.

[Rolepgeek]

Hey. Irony said they were basing it off Civilization. Pretty sure the other Civs had pillaging as a mechanic too. You were the one who brought it up.

[10ebbor10]

Yes, but this game doesn't even have gold as a currency resource. It merely has sources and progress.

[Rolepgeek]

...phallic structures....>.>
Gah. I don't really get how you win the game, anyway, since Irony said war isn't meant to be a way to conquer your enemies and see them driven before you.

[IronyOwl]

Maybe you could add pillaging as a mechanic, but that supports raiding more than anything else.

Pillaging is a thing in Civ V. You break the improvement that's on a tile and get some gold for it.

I've got some peculiar conditions I'm pursuing here, which makes this doable but tricky.

The short version is that I don't like the notion that war is destructive, because that makes it a bad idea. Even when it's only a bad idea for whoever's not doing it, I'm still not fond of it, but especially when two players go to war and that means both of them lose by virtue of being at war, it seems like it makes the game worse.

So in essence, I don't want war to be a bad thing because then doing it is a dick move and/or a poor strategy. I'm perfectly fine, on paper, with war not having any negative consequences whatsoever...

...except that does really, really weird things lore-wise. Orcs raiding you routinely? Eh, we don't need any soldiers, they're fine. Rampaging dragon terrorizing the countryside? Probably just lost, it'll find its way out eventually. Worse still, this can become codified and mutual- you might have situations where a player intentionally settles near another to give them something to raid, or as a means of leveling their sole garrison unit.

So I do want war to be a competition of some variety, I just don't want it to ruin anyone's fun or need a lot of success to pay for itself. This means, naturally, that pillaging should reward the victor with something and cost the defender something, but that it shouldn't be a big deal in any case. Given the mentioned lack of highly granular, semi-unimportant resources like currency, that's a tricky order. Maybe a stacking Happiness penalty (but again, was hoping to make Happiness a Thing You Do, not a condition) that's reset on winning a battle for the loser, and a Phallic trophy for the victor? That'd mean you couldn't ignore orcish raids, but they'd be a temporary nuisance in most cases... though if they raid you a bunch and then leave, you've either got a penalty you can't do anything about or the problem solves itself after all.

TL;DR Warning: Carebear Archlord designing war systems.

Other options are adding NPC villages, supply caravans and supply ouposts, which all would prevent decay, and perhaps military outpust that can heal.

NPC villages are intended as a large part of the game, but they'd only really be useful if you could convince one that's pretty close to the action to host you, meaning their neighbors haven't already recruited or coerced them for some reason. Maybe even nominal allies would be open to, you know, just... hosting some travelers from time to time, even if they happen to be riding wargs and dragging carts of war supplies and boasting about how those fools will never know what hit them?

Also, the defender still has a descive advantage. He starts using more troops, while the enemy already suffers from attrition.

Yeah, but his troops might be more spread out, he might not be nearly as warlike as the aggressor, and in theory he's risking something that the attacker isn't.

...phallic structures....>.>

Huehuehuehue.

I mean, call a duck a duck, right?

Gah. I don't really get how you win the game, anyway, since Irony said war isn't meant to be a way to conquer your enemies and see them driven before you.

Oh, that's easy. You "win" by having an empire you think is really cool. Despite all the mechanics, it's still intended as a sandbox more than a series of goals.

[Parsely]

Say you were a dog-man. If you had non-retractible lupine claws, wouldn't you say that'd make it hard to manipulate fine objects and comfortably hold certain things meant for humans, such as guns?

I'm not sure what this is in relation to, but not particularly. Lupine claws aren't that excessive, from my experience, and not many human objects explicitly require flat or short fingers. Maybe if they prevented proper formation of a fist?

It was in relation to: none of your business! >:C

I'm kidding! :p It was really just a general question because I have a character in one of my game's who is a dog-person and I was considering whether or not he would trim his claws, since he intended to use them to cut something.

[10ebbor10]

That war is not destructive thingy gave me a simple idea.

Oceania, the game:

The 2 most vital stats are Fear (how much the population fears the enemy/you) and trust (how much they think you're somewhat competent). Going to war obviously increases fear, while making a treaty with other players boosts trust. If the war is going against you, fear increases, but  you loose trust. If it's in your favor, you can loose fear however. As such, it's not always benevolent to actually win a war. Making it swing around a stalemate might be better to keep control of the population.

Warscore is used to keep track of the war, ranging between 5 to -5. It starts out as 0. Every battle you win increases the battle by 1, however, the harder you're winning, the faster you loose fear. In order to afford winning one war, you might need to start 3 others and slowly loose them.

In addition, there're 3 other stats. Economy (used to construct all the 3 others), Science (used to make inventions) and troops (used to fight battles). Having the most of one of those boosts trust, but might reduce fear.

Inventions have 3 possible uses. You can militarize them (massive bonus to next battle), use them to aid the population (turn fear into trust), or use them to control the population (turn trust into fear/)

[Nerjin]

Wait... WINNING the war makes people fear you less? How?

[10ebbor10]

Winning the war makes your people fear the enemy less. Uniting against a common enemy doesn't work if your common enemy isn't a reliable threat.

Without threat, they will start to wonder why they still maintain martial law and all those things.

[Nerjin]

Oh! Okay, I misunderstood what fear meant.

[IronyOwl]

That war is not destructive thingy gave me a simple idea.

Hah, I like it. Reminds me of the nation system I was thinking of for a Pacific Rim style game, where each nation has a Prosperity and Panic level, and your funding is a product or some other function of the two. Destructive monster attacks would reduce Prosperity while raising Panic, meaning if you did your job too poorly or too well, your funding would drop. It'd also have some interesting effects on nation selection, since "front-line" nations would generally have more initial funding than safer, further-back ones.