Variable City Size

[Pillager]

I think it would be interesting if there was more than one type of city. Every city in warlords is a 2x2 square...it might add a bit of spice if there was... 1x1 villages and 1x2 towns. These smaller settlements could be differentiated further by restricting the types of units they could build. Perhaps only 1 turn units could be built at 1x1 villages, and only 1 or 2 turn units could be built at 1x2 towns.

[KGB]

Pillager,

I agree. This was something I asked Steve for in Warlords 5 (when he gets around to making it).

I don't think 1x1 makes sense though. That to me is a tower which I'd also like to see brought back from Warlords I. But 1x2 for L0/L1 walls and 2x2 for L2/L3 walls would be cool. You'd just have to make sure to kill all enemy units when upgrading walls because the city would then encompass more squares on the map.

The production being based on city level is something Warlords IV did. I don't think it really added much to the game. Plus it causes a problem of what to do with higher level production when the city size is reduced. Does it disappear or just no longer be able to be made? If it disappeared that would be a bit harsh. To me just the restriction on the number of units that can be crammed inside the city seems like a good enough reason to have 1x2 and 2x2 cities.

KGB

[Pillager]

Warlords 5 is in the works? Hopefully its the warlords 3+ that never materialized. Warlords 4 never did much for me.

I wasn't really thinking about cities being grown and reduced (although that might be fun too). I see warlords as more of a war game and less of a civilization building game, and I wouldn't want to turn it into a game of building and micro-managing a civilization.

The idea of having different sized cities popped into my head while I was making the Westeros map. I was unable to differentiate epic cities (like kings landing and Oldtown) from the little towns and castles that scatter the map. A new player would have to go to each city, look at the defending unit and hold the cursor over it before they realized that one was worth 80 gold and another was worth 10.

It would be nice if a player could take in more information at a glance.... That is a big city, therefore it is worth lots of gold. It has big stone walls, so it is heavily fortified. That is a little village with no wall, so it has no defense bonus, but isn't worth much. That is a little castle, it isn't worth much gold, but is well fortified.

So much of warlords focuses around defending and attacking cities, it would be nice to have a variety of places to defend and attack.

[KGB]

Pillager,

Warlords 5 is in the works? Hopefully its the warlords 3+ that never materialized. Warlords 4 never did much for me.

Long term plans. As in they want to do it but await funding to do it properly. And yes, it will be closer to DLR than Warlords IV but plenty of ideas from Warlords IV will make it into Warlords 5.

I wasn't really thinking about cities being grown and reduced (although that might be fun too). I see warlords as more of a war game and less of a civilization building game, and I wouldn't want to turn it into a game of building and micro-managing a civilization.

When I say grow, I just meant the physical size of the city and therefore the number of units it can hold (2 or 4 stacks). I don't want anything else involved either. Just a decision to upgrade the city walls which would upgrade the city size. No management of a civilization. That's best left to solo games like Elemental: War of Magic.

The idea of having different sized cities popped into my head while I was making the Westeros map. I was unable to differentiate epic cities (like kings landing and Oldtown) from the little towns and castles that scatter the map. A new player would have to go to each city, look at the defending unit and hold the cursor over it before they realized that one was worth 80 gold and another was worth 10.

It would be nice if a player could take in more information at a glance.... That is a big city, therefore it is worth lots of gold. It has big stone walls, so it is heavily fortified. That is a little village with no wall, so it has no defense bonus, but isn't worth much. That is a little castle, it isn't worth much gold, but is well fortified.

I asked for different city icons long ago in Beta2. Sort of like how DLR did it with wooden walls for villages, stone walls for towns and heavily fortified stone walls + towers for great cities. I like the different city icons in Beta3. I just wish that as you went from L0 to L3 walls that walls and towers got added to the city icons to differentiate at a glance the strength of the city so that you don't have to click on the city as you say.

So much of warlords focuses around defending and attacking cities, it would be nice to have a variety of places to defend and attack.

That's up to the map maker.

Bullrun for example has plenty of important points to defend beyond cities (ports, mountain passes etc). With Beta3 there are now temples to guard to prevent the enemy from using them and potentially ruins can be guarded (with neutral armies once that feature is added).

KGB

[Pillager]

KGB,

I don't think that city walls and city size should be lumped together. There are many examples of small castles with formidable defenses. Being able to house many troops does not mean that the walls are strong. It is more difficult to defend (and more labor and material intensive to fortify) a large area.

Perhaps just having two sizes of city; 1x1, and 2x2. 1x1's could represent villages and forts, on a random set up they might provide half the gold (on average) of a full sized city. I would also would like to see production limited in some way...either by not allowing them to produce anything bigger than a 1 turn unit, or by making production take twice as long (i.e. a 1 turn unit takes 2 turns, a 2 turn unit takes 4), or by not letting them produce units at all.

KGB, I agree that it is up to the mapmaker to do his or her best with the tools at hand....but, having a few more tools doesn't hurt.

[KGB]

Pillager,

I'm not sure I like the idea of production limited by size. Then you really limit the player who doesn't get a lot of the larger cities. If you aren't going to allow size upgrades that player can't do anything about his situation which quite frankly sucks.

In any case, 90% of the cities make only 1 turn units anyway. The optimum way to play is lots of 1 turn cannon fodder swarming the map inflated by cheap bonus's from the occasional Pegasi/Medusa/Elephant/Wolf Rider/Dragon etc. There just isn't gold to support buying tons of 2+ turn units even if that was a winning strategy.

The only reason I wanted cities that weren't 2x2 is so that some cities could only hold fewer stacks of units and thus not have as many units inflated by the cheap bonus's. I'd still like to see 1x1 be towers ala Warlords I. Those would have a +1 city wall bonus and an extra view range (6 or 7) from a city. But wouldn't be able to produce anything or have units vectored to them. They would just be strong points with a large view. That would give another focal point for players to battle over esp if those towers guarded narrow passes.

KGB

[Pillager]

'm not sure I like the idea of production limited by size. Then you really limit the player who doesn't get a lot of the larger cities. If you aren't going to allow size upgrades that player can't do anything about his situation which quite frankly sucks.

A 1x1 city would be visibly different on the map, and players would treat them differently. If a player chooses to attack only small cities and ends up with no larger cities, then they deserve to have some problems.

I like the tower idea. I think towers would be a nice addition to the game. I probably wouldn't add small cities and towers though, one or the other.

If towers were added, I would also like to see villages. 1x1 clusters of houses that provide a small amount of gold each turn. A village would not be a terrain type, it would be superimposed over terrain (like a road). When your units occupy a village, they place your flag there claiming its income for your warlord.

[KGB]

Pillager,

A 1x1 city would be visibly different on the map, and players would treat them differently. If a player chooses to attack only small cities and ends up with no larger cities, then they deserve to have some problems.

This is true.

But at the same time doing this imposes another balancing act on map designers. Not only do you have to balance cities, ruins (including different ruin types), temples but now you'd have to make sure you gave each area enough higher level cities. I just think we'd end up having to have endless quasi-mirror maps to have a reasonably balanced map.

If towers were added, I would also like to see villages. 1x1 clusters of houses that provide a small amount of gold each turn. A village would not be a terrain type, it would be superimposed over terrain (like a road). When your units occupy a village, they place your flag there claiming its income for your warlord.

As you recall from DLR, this concept was called sites What you've described is the field site. And yes, I'd like to have the DLR site concept added because those sites were valuable and had to be guarded because they too could be razed (and rebuilt). We've already got temples and ports so we'd just need towers, gold sites (villages/mines) plus other DLR sites like +1 strength, -1 production time etc.

KGB

[Pillager]

KGB,

I don't think small cities pose any threat to mapmakers in search of fine balance. If a small city has (on average) half the income of a regular city, and produces troops at half the speed...then two small cities are probably not too much less valuable than a large one. Three small cities are likely more valuable than one large city.

What is the value of -1 production site? Would -1 production sites pose an insidious threat to map balance?

What you've described is the field site.

Not exactly. As I recall, the field site in warlords 3 was worth 1 gold/turn...and wasn't worth defending. Also, the control mechanic I described is different than that used in DLR.

I like many aspects of DLRs sites...but I don't like that control of the site was tied to the nearest city. You could burn an enemy site, but you couldn't take control of it unless you attacked the city it was tied to. I think there are already enough reasons to attack cities, no further incentives are needed. Having a separate location that can serve as a focal point for field battles would add a bit of variety to the game, and would encourage active defense as opposed to static city garrisons.

[KGB]

Pillager,

I don't think small cities pose any threat to mapmakers in search of fine balance. If a small city has (on average) half the income of a regular city, and produces troops at half the speed...then two small cities are probably not too much less valuable than a large one. Three small cities are likely more valuable than one large city.

What is the value of -1 production site? Would -1 production sites pose an insidious threat to map balance?

Actually a -1 production site was worth a lot in DLR. Getting a 2 turn unit in 1 turn is HUGE. By the same token, a 2 turn unit taking 3 or 4 turns is hopelessly not worth building. That kind of city would be pointless other than making 1 turn units in 1 turn.

Now if you wanted to make 2+ turn production more expensive to BUY in small cities then I could see that. Because it's a one time setup cost that doesn't over penalize players.

Not exactly. As I recall, the field site in warlords 3 was worth 1 gold/turn...and wasn't worth defending.[

In the base game, yes. But scenario makers could define the amount of gold a site game. There are lots of custom scenarios where those sites gave 50 or 100 gold. Those were worth defending.

Also, the control mechanic I described is different than that used in DLR.

I like many aspects of DLRs sites...but I don't like that control of the site was tied to the nearest city. You could burn an enemy site, but you couldn't take control of it unless you attacked the city it was tied to. I think there are already enough reasons to attack cities, no further incentives are needed. Having a separate location that can serve as a focal point for field battles would add a bit of variety to the game, and would encourage active defense as opposed to static city garrisons.

Yes, I understood you meant a different control mechanism for the village gold site. One not tied to the city but merely to the last person there. And I agree that would be a nice change. But other sites that gave bonus's to strength/production would have to be tied to a city to make sense. So some like towers/gold/ports could be separate and others would be tied.

KGB