Use gold to expedite production turn

[Horyu]

When is hardship to bear in the 1st turn when all units die and left hero alone after conquered the 1st city. I would wish there would a game mechanism to reduce turn of production by using gold,
eg city produce ghost in 3 turns so to reduce 1st turn production need 100 gold , need to reduce 2nd turn production pay 200 gold , need to reduce 3rd turn production need 300 gold , finally to instant appear the ghost need 400 gold. this will result paying 1000 gold if i wish to instant pop up my ghost troop for that very turn.
This is a good option for lack of troop to muster for hero to continue to fight on the next turn.

[Moonknight]

That would be helpful indeed, but potentially very dangerous.

If Mercenary offers were in play I think it'd be a better option to the problem. The calculations of an offer could include how many armies a person has compared to castles...i.e., if armies to castle ratio is <2, a Mercenary offer is provided (and how good the units are depends on gold available).

[hungrytales]

@Moonknight: seconded.

[KGB]

The calculations of an offer could include how many armies a person has compared to castles...i.e., if armies to castle ratio is <2, a Mercenary offer is provided (and how good the units are depends on gold available).

I would not like that idea. It basically rewards those who have lost their armies. It's also biased against those who make a lot of 1 turn men.

What I recall is that mercenary offers are going to come by a visiting a new building. So you'll have to visit the building to get the offer.

KGB

[Chazar]

I would wish there would a game mechanism to reduce turn of production by using gold

There is already such a mechanism in the game, it is called: Allies accompanying Heroes. If you have sufficient gold, you can produce dragons in an instant.

I am already slightly sceptic about allowing mercenaries, and I think that anything else would be too much.

That said, I agree that loosing everything - and hence the game - on the first or second turn due to ill luck is annoying as hell and has nothing to do with skill. However, if a mechanism against this would be implemented, then players could abuse it by high-risk behaviour. I liked the suggestion to make the 90%-rule dynamic, i.e. reducing luck for the first three turns or so.

[LPhillips]

I liked the suggestion to make the 90%-rule dynamic, i.e. reducing luck for the first three turns or so.

I'm on board with the rest of your post, in the same mentality, but I object to this. The same rules should be present throughout the game. If someone loses all armies on the first few turns, it's due to one of two things:

1) The map is (too?) unforgiving, and that's part of it. If it's not the same for all competitors, then that's also a map balance problem, and something to be corrected by mapmakers and not coding.

2) He's not a very good player, and takes bad risks. This is something to be corrected with employing patience and/or more thought, not coding.

Since the causes of the problem are not a coding issue, the solution is not coding
Let us all play by the same rules, all the time.

[Horyu]

I would wish there would a game mechanism to reduce turn of production by using gold

There is already such a mechanism in the game, it is called: Allies accompanying Heroes. If you have sufficient gold, you can produce dragons in an instant.

I am already slightly sceptic about allowing mercenaries, and I think that anything else would be too much.

That said, I agree that loosing everything - and hence the game - on the first or second turn due to ill luck is annoying as hell and has nothing to do with skill. However, if a mechanism against this would be implemented, then players could abuse it by high-risk behaviour. I liked the suggestion to make the 90%-rule dynamic, i.e. reducing luck for the first three turns or so.

This is just lucky u will get the next game turn if the hero turn up. I am talking about is own city production troop to expedite. Next mercenaries is also appear in random so is not predictable. btw even those mercenaries or hero allies may not be your desire unit so the random factor is great.

[Horyu]

I liked the suggestion to make the 90%-rule dynamic, i.e. reducing luck for the first three turns or so.

I'm on board with the rest of your post, in the same mentality, but I object to this. The same rules should be present throughout the game. If someone loses all armies on the first few turns, it's due to one of two things:

1) The map is (too?) unforgiving, and that's part of it. If it's not the same for all competitors, then that's also a map balance problem, and something to be corrected by mapmakers and not coding.

2) He's not a very good player, and takes bad risks. This is something to be corrected with employing patience and/or more thought, not coding.

Since the causes of the problem are not a coding issue, the solution is not coding
Let us all play by the same rules, all the time.

LPhilips u may try borders map take the southeast hilly region startup is very harsh i took 2 turn to move my troop to conquer my 1st city and lost all troop after i took the mine from guarded by dwarf which occurs at the same turn. Start of 3rd turn i lost hero and pikeman while attacking a mine guarded by dwarf. ya truly shit luck

[KGB]

What I wish the game would do is change from a 'everyone gets the same armies' model to a point system like DLR used.

Right now the game gives 4 starting armies to each player. But depending on the map and the armies there can be a HUGE imbalance in the game on turn 1. For example quite a few maps have sand around only 1 starting area. If a Sandworm is given as one of the initial units, that player benefits disproportionately due to the 1 movement rate on sand allowing him to expand like crazy. Or sometimes the game gives 2 Elves and 2 Lt Calv and you are surrounded by Hills and your opponent by Forest and your initial gold is only 700 so you can't afford a hero and Dwarf. Once again someone benefits disproportionately.

What DLR did was give players X amount of points to spend (say 2000 points). Each unit then cost Y amount of points (where Y is different for each unit, maybe 75 points for a scout, 900 for a Gryphon and 2500 for a Red Dragon). Players were then free to buy as many or few units as they could with their starting points (so you could buy 26 scouts OR 2 Gryphons and 2 scouts etc). This lets players tailor their initial units to their starting conditions so you'd buy Elves in woods, Orcs in swamps etc. You could buy only a few strong units or many weak ones etc. This opens up a whole new strategic area.

KGB

[LPhillips]

According to the Kickstarter site, Mercenaries will not be random events. That would be unfair. They will be buildings, and it is reasonable to assume that any player may reach and use them according to map construction.

Horyu, anyone may face challenging maps or take bad chances, but this statement remains:
"If it is not a coding problem, then coding is not the issue."

KGB,
That sounds like a fine plan to me. I'd suggest implementing it in ladder games only. We want newcomers to have as few complex decisions to make as possible. Also, I'm still heavily insistent that newcomers should not be able to jump right into ladder games, but there's no word on that yet.

As for the technical details: how would you establish the points? Is there perhaps a cash reward for not using all of your points? Should some units be unattainable? I would think so.