Conquering Cities containing High Ambush

[KGB]

KenC80,

I guess my last point would be that this will increase the learning curve...which is growing with every tweak.

Too late. That genie is out of the bottle and is not going back in. Imagine when spells get added as they surely will be sooner rather than later.

Can the community grow new players with all of these rules - or will our growth come from players poached from other strategy/tabletops? I think we'll probably see a fresh wave of players when live turns begins but I do think its worth considering the new player. I think the learning curve is getting pretty steep with all the tweaks. Hard enough for newer players to get all this. I recently played a new player and I could not get him to understand to equip his hero, much less explain negate or any of the other advanced stuff. Are we risking overload with beginners? I recently did a 1v1 with a newer player and we worked through learning to equip his hero. We talked a bit about the basics of stack construction but I never even got around to teaching him basic morale, much less negate, much less ambush!

This is why I've stated for quite some time that the entire bonus system will have to be scrapped and be redone because it's overly complex making it hard to learn/master. Even worse is it's hard to add anything new to it without breaking something else.

In fact Piranha and I exchanged an email on the weekend about this very topic. He was talking about where they envision the game going and about the need to re-do the bonus system and what I thought was worth keeping, scrapping etc. I sent a reply based on their vision and what I hoped the game kept and where it would be cool to go in their own direction along with a few thoughts of my own culled from other strategy games etc. Eventually this is something he mentioned will get discussed on the forum in probably a lot of topics and posts as they present a basic framework and solicit input. My point being, don't get too attached to the current bonus system because it's not going to survive.

KGB

[Finite]

I still think one of the strong points of the game is simplicity... ruins and boats are confusing but I don't know why people think bonuses are? Well maybe the hero and normal unit morales could be combined without losing much, but I don't think it is hard to understand.

Also I haven't had issues with ambush (or other group bonuses) being too strong in defense, when so often defending is the losing strategy. I think it is more of a map issue if some city must be conquered to win.

[LPhillips]

KenC80,
My point being, don't get too attached to the current bonus system because it's not going to survive.

KGB

This has been my view for a while as well. The current bonus system won't work with the direction the game is going. What you describe is going to be a large evolutionary leap, however, and it is a big effort and a big risk as well. If you put that much effort into something and it doesn't work, then you could see some project stagnation. However, the current bonus system is a dead end and needs to be reworked eventually.

As far as the "learning curve" is concerned:
Yes, it's way out of hand. However, in any game with significant complexity you must set it up so that players learn on a curve. Right now they're presented with a vertical cliff. Everything is thrown at them at once, with relatively little instruction. Even the wads of instruction needed to help them climb the cliff would discourage newbies. The correct solution is a sort of Campaign, offered up front and teaching the player step by step. This is a recognized strategy from years gone by: you must introduce gameplay elements slowly so that the player can learn them in a progressive way. In anything from Zelda to Modern Warfare, the player is introduced to abilities, items, and strategies progressively. That's the real reason for the evolution of the "unlock" system in games, with the added intrigue being secondary.