Print

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

Give us more labour, we'll take the additional food cost.

0 (0%)

Reduce construction costs so we can get labour benefits without extra food costs.

1 (25%)

Keep it as it is; increasing goods production without additional food cost.

3 (75%)

Total Members Voted: 4

[zchris13]

They should provide the same type of bonus. That would make sense.

[Iituem]

I'm going to say yes on that one, no improving with watermills any tiles that actually give you resources you can use to make more labour.

[Nirur Torir]

Alright, I figured as much. For the poll, I vote we get bonus labor like AoR, but that it not require additional food. That would be less then kind to those who aren't in fertile regions.

If it's too difficult to script in, I'll just vote that we leave it like it is, although I'm not sure how well that will work for resources less common then food.

[Iituem]

Unfortunately, I would have a lot of difficulty changing it to increase labour without increasing food.  For balance reasons, food and luxuries are directly linked to labour so that even if you are getting more labour, there is a consummate cost.

I could quite easily upgrade things (read: change two numbers) so that you get +25% resource production on Morale 8/9, and +50% on Morale 10.  It's a fairly massive boom all around, but ultimately self-correcting (the resultant population boom becomes dependent on the extra food etc, but needs morale kept that high despite overcrowding becoming an issue).  You get increased overall resource production even if you're producing as little as four goods of a type (so the benefit is conferred to wood/stone/food production or manufactured goods production rather than special goods e.g. iced tea production).

Looks like a preference for bonus labour is the majority, though.

[Iituem]

Right now the only way to 'level up' a unit is through battle.  I'm looking at tuning up unit support, however, and it looks like I could probably set it so that units can consume a unit of food to gain a free level, or (very) slowly gain a level every 5 years.  The main effect this would have is on raiders, who I'm considering making a touch more intricate.  Raiders would then grow more powerful as a direct result of how successful their raids are.

Plus, NPC raiders probably won't be supported by a city, so raiding would be their main form of support.

A level isn't that much, it's literally one stat increase, but it's independent of equipment modifiers.  What do we reckon?

[Enzo]

I approve of spending food to level up units from a strictly metagame perspective, because it looks like I'm going to have a shitload of food from my fishing villages, and elite yeti green berets would be totally awesome.

While I'm posting, I should also mention that Iced Tea is perhaps the greatest tundra resource ever. I lol'd when I saw what the symbol looked like.

[Strife26]

Does my mechanic's shop increase labor by 33% or reduce construction needed by 33%?

So does it work like:
3 labor used with a modifier of 133% each = 4 labor provided

or 3 labor needed -33% each = 2 labor needed


Or would it have been smarter for me not to ask and just assume that it helped me the most?

[Iituem]

It was smarter of you to ask, because I already coded it in.  It reduces construction, it does not increase labour.  It also rounds to the nearest.

That is, something that cost 1 labour will still cost 1 labour.
2 labour will still cost 2 labour because I added in a specific code block.
3 labour will cost 2 labour
4 labour will cost 3 labour
5 labour will cost 3 labour
6 labour will cost 4 labour
And so on.


Poll has been adjusted to be more reflective.  Whatever is decided, goes in for the next update.

[Iituem]

Bluuurgh.

Coding update: Multi-unit combat is scripted, working and I think I have the majority of the bugs worked out.  The script even draws little ASCII pictures so I can work out troop disposition for the write-up.  Very basic combat AI has been determined so that battles actually function, and the pursuit system was redesigned.  The downside is that there's less of a random element.  The upside is that hit and run tactics are now both viable and automatically pursued by units with sufficient movement and range advantage. 

Surprise works as a sort of stealth power; you start out hidden, and everybody gets a shot at unveiling you, more effective the closer you are.  I've left room for specialised units to re-conceal themselves, but generally once unveiled you stay that way.  The good news is that if you can get within range to attack, you still get the auto-hit and damage bonus.

Nerve determines flee chance as before, but it also has a subtle chance of screwing up your tactical maneuvers.  In more complex combat scenarios, it is advantageous to stand still and await the enemy's approach rather than advancing or retreating.  Failure of nerve checks results in your units breaking discipline and making a potentially disastrous move.

As a failsafe, if combat is not resolved in a hundred rounds the battle is considered a draw.

Range and movement are about twice as important as other combat stats, move more so, as with sufficient ran/mov, you can win against a massively more powerful combatant just using hit and run tactics.  That said, an attack advantage of 5 or so means you'll nearly always hit, and a defence advantage of 5 means you'll pretty much always evade, so there's limits.  I may code in more sophisticated tactical judgements to reflect.

Finally, there is the question of quarter.  Everyone starts off with their troops giving quarter.  That is to say; if an enemy flees they will let them, if an enemy surrenders they will capture them.  You can set your troops to give no quarter.  They will show no mercy and hunt their foes down to their bitter and bloody end.

Oh yes, there's a capture script in now.  On capture, units defect to the unit that defeated them's side.  Right now it only functions if they are completely surrounded, but I may work a change into that.



Unit support is about 50% done.  Support is now based on unit power (for which move and range count double) - every 4 power higher than 9 (the starting point for raiders and generic unit types), upkeep costs increase by 1 wealth (if you have Trade).  While suckling at a city's teat, however, units should level up (gain a random general stat) every 5 or so turns.

If you cannot afford to pay your units, they will not automatically disband any more!  (Yaay!)
Instead, there will be a loyalty check based on unit Nerve and how expensive they are.  On failure, they will mutiny, turn into raiders and plunder your city unless more loyal troops remain to defend it.  (Boo...)

Units not suckling at a city's teat (or which the city cannot afford to pay) suffer a slow death over 10+ turns and eventually disband when support reaches 0.  This sounds good, up until the point you realise that all these dying units will quite probably turn on you and become raiders for the sake of survival. 

To be coded: Raiders steal food and goods (which they will trade for food).  They eat the food to gain bonus support (enough to support a very basic unit for ten turns, or a very powerful unit for two or three turns) and possibly to level up.


Next on the coding schedule:  Imperial relations, NPC Raider AI and Trade Routes.

[Vanigo]

Hmmph. I'd hoped to get another turn in before this, but it looks like that's not going to happen. I'm going to be out of town for the next two weeks, with little or no internet access. I'm PMing Iituem a general plan for the next few turns, so he can auto me.

[Iituem]

Received.  Turn may commence some 24 hours from now unless there's a direct objection, to keep game pace continuing.  (I will only implement this if there is only one player unposted and it's been at least 24 hours since the fifth player posted.)  If Strife hasn't posted, Zefies will be on autopilot for this turn (terrain will be worked, food and goods will be stockpiled, any existing research will continue - no new building or terrain upgrade projects will be started, no exploration or military construction will happen, but in the event of an attack conscripts will be raised).

[Nirur Torir]

Yay, a turn's coming soon!

How's the Imperial Relations code going? Arcane City wants slave cities loyal vassal states.

I get the feeling that Archery research is going to take me a while, and composite short bows are going to take even longer. Horse archer mages!

[Iituem]

It got delayed because I had to fine-tune the combat code.  There were quite a few bugs I didn't notice originally because the first set of sims pitted two perfectly equal units against each other, so it didn't track things quite right.

The first fun point was when I realised I'd screwed up initiative calculations - the initiative counter for two equally-placed units would actually just ignore the second unit, so the reason why Unit 1 kept winning every time in my tests was the fact it was the only one actually making any moves.  -_-

Then there was the problem that archers wouldn't stand and fire at an oncoming cavalry charge but would try and run - even as they were being cut down.  I've since implemented a basic surrender script so that if anyone is being chased by an enemy they are hopelessly incapable of outrunning they just surrender and defect rather than keep fleeing (subject to whether quarter is shown).  Incidentally, only the Tylonese raiders are set to 'no mercy' right now, because Filius specified such in their original description.


Even if I don't put it in by the time the turn happens, expect to get a reputation boost equal to what I have planned with those towns anyway, Nirur.  I'm thinking about giving 'respect' boosts for any unit stationed in a territory over the full turn (be it patrolling units, raiders staking out their territory, or just folks garrisonning it up), likely enough that a single unit can convert all villages in a territory (from a starting respect of 0) in ten turns.  Multiple units should make that happen faster, linearly.

To avoid making it too easy, I will probably set it so you gain (a little) respect for winning battles and lose (a lot of) respect for losing them in a village's territory.  I will certainly set it so that respect drops like a stone if any of those villages gets raided by anyone (even you, but that's what fear is for), but only for the side that owns them.  This means that someone who keeps their raiders stationed in the territory for a few turns and keeps killing off the defenders can happily 'inherit' all the villages once their respect gets high enough/their owners' respect gets low enough, and keep raiding them all the while until then.

Fear, respect and love will each gain you territories, though at the moment fear is the only one coded in.  Since fear is based on persecution type actions, I think I'll stick with respect being based on military might (whether or not it's being used against them personally) and love probably relating to trade somehow.

Trade's a bit nebulous at the moment.  I'll probably set up territories so they have a chance of spawning with a 'feature' (something like a river or a special resource) that gives a bonus sometimes picked up by villages - that way you can get resources not available in your immediate surroundings.  Trade (and raiding) will probably allow you to get those, but trade may help increase village growth somehow (still not sure how - luxury based, perhaps?  Right now they don't produce luxuries.) and bring a 'love' bonus to the civ trading with them.  Enough love and they willingly submit to you just to be part of your glorious culture.

So yeah, the plan is to be able to have your peons fear, respect and love you, though that will probably be difficult given that most of the methods used to inspire fear engender quite a bit of hate in the process.  Which reminds me, 'defender' spawn for unprotected and pissy communities is next on the list...



Finally, regarding Mongols.  Basic infantry upkeep is 1 wealth.  So is very basic cavalry upkeep, but only just.  Give them a spear or a shield (or both for the Magernians, who cost less because they have a nerve penalty) and cavalry cost 2 wealth per turn.  Basic shortbow archers are 2 wealth upkeep on their own.

Basic shortbow horse archers with leather armour are 3 wealth upkeep per turn (that's 6,000 citizens' worth of taxes to support 100 men).  Make those iron tipped (+2 to attack), barbed (+1 force?) and composite (+1 attack, should we say?) and suddenly it requires 8,000 citizens to support a single unit of what are essentially green Mongols.  That's before they gain any experience.  Against an equally skilled foe, units can gain as much as 4 stat points in a single battle while becoming veterans.  That's another wealth's worth of upkeep right there.

An experienced unit of Mongols will cost the worth of an entire city in taxation just to feed and house, let alone equip.  On the other hand, they will be able to slaughter virtually anyone they meet.

Unless they meet a group of trained assassins able to out-stealth them and land a crucial, unit-destroying hit in a single blow at close range.  Yes, that can happen if a unit's Force and Stealth are high enough.  It's not the worst thing that can happen.


The worst thing that can happen is you can't pay your new Mongols.  That's when they go rogue and start raiding your city and you suddenly find you have no units capable of stopping them.  Well done.

[zchris13]

The worst thing that can happen is you can't pay your new Mongols.  That's when they go rogue and start raiding your city and you suddenly find you have no units capable of stopping them.  Well done.

Or that could be the best. If it happens away from your stuff.  And close to your enemies stuff.

[Neyvn]

I take it that its too late to join this???