Valkyrie vs Assasin

[KGB]

The problem with size 1 and 2 towns is it requires a lot of new graphics (18 new images). Then they aren't going to look right when scaled next to ruins/sites/towers etc (the new wall graphics look silly to me personally even though the artwork itself is great).

So I think it's far better to just have 2x2 city sizes to show how important they are. As far as entering/exiting goes that can easily be worked out if the idea is going to be developed. No stack would ever have to spend movement moving over X'd out squares.

KGB

[magian]

Not every city is equally important. Some produce 3 or 4 times the gold of others. I think having multiple city sizes makes perfect sense in that context (small ones produce less gold). We could also get rid of some of the complexities of the map maker. Instead of selecting poor city, just put a small city down.

Yes, new graphics would have to be made. But size 1 doesn't have to mean tiny. Look at the level 3 ruin, that thing is pretty imposing.

[KGB]

Actually every city is equally important in that it can produce exactly 1 unit at a time. The differing gold amounts are interesting but minor differences (assuming it's not a 110 gold city) given there is gold available from ruins and sites.

So while I'd like to see options for cities holding few than 32 units, I'm not for physically smaller cities as I think that makes map making *more* complex, not less as makers have to pick and decide on city sizes now too as otherwise there will be whining about "I didn't get enough large size cities compared to my opponent". When a random map maker eventually gets added (and one will) that will make balancing random maps that much harder as well.

In that same vein, I don't want the cities that hold fewer than 32 units to have special limits on which units they can build or how many armies can vector there etc.

KGB

[magian]

It depends on the map. On maps without much gold, that difference is more than just 'interesting'.

Maybe, better than size 1 cities would be 'troop production sites'. We already have the defensive component of the city as a site (in the tower), and the gold production element (in villages,mines,etc). Why not have the troop production component as a site? Maybe make them produce specific units, like a tree that poops out elves, or a shabby hut in the swamp that breeds orcs. You could have nicer ones too, griffin nests and wizards towers, and all that good stuff. Again, additional graphics would be required.

[KGB]

Merc buildings were already planned at one time. You'd visit the building every so often and be able to buy specific types of troops much in the manner you suggest (a tree building would supply Elves, Unicorns and other forest unit type stuff).

My problem with them is that it's yet *another* feature map makers have to add to the maps. Which requires updating all existing maps (which many makers rarely do) AND balancing those maps so that all players get equal access to equal numbers of these merc sites. All of which leads to complaints if it's *not equal*. Sigh.

My suggestion if we need more units injected into the game is award them from a quest system (which the game really needs) and have them show up in DLR like fashion but *only* at capitol cities. Which means no new graphics, all players get equal access (until they lose their capitol) and capturing an enemy capitol would provide another place for mercs to join closer to the front lines (so there is greater incentive to hold a capitol instead of raze it).

KGB

[magian]

I would just take those merc buildings and have them produce units like cities. Can't see a reason to use a different mechanic.

Makes balancing maps more difficult? I'd say it would make balance easier, considering that the big cities have some balance issues of their own. Honestly, I can't see your point at all, every change to the game forces people (both map makers and players) to adjust a bit. This game is still in beta, there are going to be changes.

[KGB]

Magican,

OK, so how are you envisioning this to work.

Currently only cities produce units, be upgraded, be razed, be rebuilt, have units vectored to them etc. The focus of the game (rightly so) is on control of these very valuable resources.

With the addition of such merc buildings we would now have: A building that produces units and can't be razed. While I think buildings/ports should be able to be razed/rebuilt, adding a merc building would virtually require it. Since they'd be more valuable that gold sites would that also mean they need a city wall defense bonus too? Would these sites be upgradeable (different mercs)?

Beyond that, how do you get these mercs (require a hero or just any unit to go there)? You building them like cities (ie wait X turns for 1 unit) in which case they are really cities? You paying gold for them and get as many as you want (seems awful unbalanced)? How do you chose which type when it makes more than one type? Lots of questions here that don't have easy answers. I don't want a 'store' where you just show up with gold and buy all you want because that makes it into a gold game and cheapens the value of producing units at cities. But I also don't want them producing like cities when we already have cities to do that job (ie just place another city there on the map).


At the moment I'd much rather add the ability to produce better units (extra strength, extra move, faster production times etc) in the cities we already have.

KGB

[magian]

I agree with you about the razing issue. If something builds units it needs to be able to be razed. I would like to be able to raze villages and towers as well. Haven't thought about ports, I could see razing ports creating problems, unless boats could re-build them.

I see them working just like a city, building whatever unit they are tied to. Give each a default unit type, but allow map makers to specify what unit (or possibly units) could be produced there. Have those units take the same amount of time to build as they would at a city.

Yes, they would be troop production centers. No, they would not be cities. They would not have walls that could be upgraded. They would not produce gold. They would not allow 4 stacks to defend them. They would have a limited selection of units they could build (maybe just one). They would not count as a city for victory points. They would be utterly inferior to cities. But could still be very important locations.

They should probably be pillage-able.

Not too sure about vectoring. Maybe be able to vector from them, but not to them.

Perhaps another site is called for. A magic obelisk that can be vectored to. Then all the individual components of a city would be represented by lesser locations.

[magian]

At the moment I'd much rather add the ability to produce better units (extra strength, extra move, faster production times etc) in the cities we already have.

KGB

Did graphics ever get made for those upgraded units (armored elephants and suchlike)? If they did, we now (very nearly) have the tools to use them. With the current map editor you can select what units can be built at a city. Why not add the option to build upgraded units instead of standard ones? I could specify that city X can build armored elephants. They would cost the same amount gold to build and turns to produce, but be slightly better than normal elephants (maybe an extra hp for being armored).

[KGB]

Yes, they would be troop production centers. No, they would not be cities. They would not have walls that could be upgraded. They would not produce gold. They would not allow 4 stacks to defend them. They would have a limited selection of units they could build (maybe just one). They would not count as a city for victory points. They would be utterly inferior to cities. But could still be very important locations.

They should probably be pillage-able. Not too sure about vectoring. Maybe be able to vector from them, but not to them.

What you are basically describing here is simply a city of size 1x1. Everything you mention here can already be done with existing cities (set limited production, set gold income to zero, razeable, rebuildable, pillageable etc) minus the city walls and vectoring. In fact if these sites couldn't vector armies they made they would be totally useless (no one wants to walk men across a large map from the other side). So what exactly are we getting here game wise that requires this addition? If 1x1 size cities is so vital then it's better to just create 1x1 cities instead of another set of rules for a site that is another complication/rule set for new players to learn.

I would like to be able to raze villages and towers as well. Haven't thought about ports, I could see razing ports creating problems, unless boats could re-build them.

Towers already automatically degrade each time they are captured eventually disappearing. I'd like gold sites to do the same (100%, 75%, 50%, 25% until 0% income is reached after 5 captures). The cost to fix the gold site could be 3x the cost of the lost income. For ports, I would suggest that boats should still be able to land / leave from a razed port for an extra cost (4 gold per boat) but there would no longer be any boat upgrades until it's repaired (that means the raze and repair cost needs to be something like 50-100 gold).

Did graphics ever get made for those upgraded units (armored elephants and suchlike)?

No. Not sure the game requires it either since it would mean a LOT of new images. An opponent should have to scout your armies if he wants to see your stats. As for the player whose units it is, they can have an extra icon on the image like the bless icon we have now that indicates this unit is upgrade in some manner.

KGB