Lost hits

[Igor]

Units with 2+ hits can lose 1 or more hits in battle, but after the battle is finished, number of hits is again full like before the battle.
I think would be more fair if units with 2+ hits save only those hits which they save in battle.
For example, an Elemental attacked a Giant and won but saved 2 hits of 3. Then after the battle this Elemental has only 2 hits.
Lost hits can be regenerated in some time, for example 2 turns per 1 hit.
The same about heroes.

This could make game more realistic than now, when Heavy Cavalry lose 1 hit in a battle but after the battle lost hit will come back.

[SnotlinG]

This has been much thought about. The problem is changing it to this would change the game itself quite dramatically. But feedback and discussions around this idea is always welcome and we might reconsider in the future

[Zaque]

I think this should wait until we get some kind of healing in the game, as putting them both in at the same time would sorta balance out how game changing each one on its own is. I do like the idea but I would instead make everything heal 1 hit at the start or end of every turn. Not sure which way would be best to reduce the who goes first advantage them most.

This would also make team games much more interesting as you could hit the same 5 hit barbarian and slowly whittle it down to death, instead of having to only rely on the luck of ambush.

[Chazar]

Not healing units between turns would increase micro management, which is probably not a good idea.

Even not healing between battles would increase micro management somewhat. I guess it would increase the time to make turns for me personally already...

Instead, I think a better mechanic to solve this problem would be two-pronged attacks: a hero-lead stack is allowed to attack together with another stack from another square (even from a team mate) in a single battle. In addition, this would also favor offense a bit (allowing 16 units to attack a 32 unit city).

[Igor]

This has been much thought about. The problem is changing it to this would change the game itself quite dramatically. But feedback and discussions around this idea is always welcome and we might reconsider in the future

I just wish to see the game more realistic. There is some false in that when all 2+ hits units always save all their hits after battle, it's unreal.
I would also to remind about my idea to add food to the game. I mean that any unit need some food to live and fight. Then if 32 units are siting in a city they will be killed by hunger in a row of turns. So they need to move out of city to take food somewhere.
In real ancient war, to supply food was one of main task for strategist. If no food, this means lost war.
I think these 2 things will make Warbarons much more realistic and more attractive.

[Chazar]

I just wish to see the game more realistic.
...
In real ancient war, to supply food was one of main task for strategist. If no food, this means lost war.
I think these 2 things will make Warbarons much more realistic and more attractive.

There already are plenty of other turn-based strategy games that feature food, slow healing and strive for realism. For example, the Dominions series is full of detail, and food is a major concern there. While I love Dominions, I don't play it anymore, since it is just way too complex to play easily for an hour a day. Sorting out the wounded in Dominions is fun at first, but eventually it becomes just a boring drag!

For me, the prime appeal of Warbarons lies in its relatively simple rule set, that is straightforward to understand.

Unlike other turn-based games, with Warbarons it is fairly easy to jump in and enjoy very interesting games. Warbarons unique ability to be fairly simple while still allowing many interesting strategies is its main selling point for me.
(Well, that, and the Warlords nostalgia, I have to admit.)

[KGB]

I would also to remind about my idea to add food to the game. I mean that any unit need some food to live and fight. Then if 32 units are siting in a city they will be killed by hunger in a row of turns. So they need to move out of city to take food somewhere.
In real ancient war, to supply food was one of main task for strategist. If no food, this means lost war.
I think these 2 things will make Warbarons much more realistic and more attractive.

Except in real wars they are all fought by people. In Warbarons they are mostly fought with fantasy creatures who may not need to eat in the same manner as humans.

For example why would a Ghost or an Elemental have any need to eat?
Who knows whether Demons, Devils or Archons have to eat or how often.
Many other units like Unicorns/Pegasi/Elephants can live on grass which there is plenty of.
Dragons often went a year or more between eating (like many reptiles can) then gorge themselves.
Still others like Crows/Eagles can simply fly off to eat grain or mice etc.

There is just no reasonable way to manage the fact that all units don't need to eat like humans.

That's without considering magic which could be used to portal in food or create food.

KGB

Instead, I think a better mechanic to solve this problem would be two-pronged attacks: a hero-lead stack is allowed to attack together with another stack from another square (even from a team mate) in a single battle. In addition, this would also favor offense a bit (allowing 16 units to attack a 32 unit city).

The problem with this is that it would make the Assassin hero VERY overpowering. Now at 50% group ambush 16 units are guaranteed to kill 8 enemy units regardless of strength. Right now they are only guaranteed 4 kills which means other bonus's decide if the surviving 4 units can kill the 8 stack of the Assassin. So I don't see how this would work as everyone would complain they didn't get 16 men on defense when a hero stack had another stack standing next to them.

[Igor]

I still wish to see the game more realistic. And for this I put light on 2 other features.
A new type of units - Engineers, who can built a road through different terrains, can make a port in a place where it wasn't earlier or to raze an existing port, or even to dig a lake or water channel through land. I spoke already about these units, I see them very useful in game.
Other feature is deserting, or escaping, and treason. This means that very weak group of units can escape out of a battle with much more powerful group, or even to join to attackers. Excluding neutral defenders. Size of percentage which is critical for this feature is seen for me as 10%: when attackers have 90% vs 10%, defenders escaped (auto dismissed) or joined to attackers.

I don't think we ought to be afraid to add big changes to the game if these changes will make the game much more interesting.
Some examples of extra changes are already exist.
First of all, downgrading of Demons which could make a game even without heroes.
Then adding Barbarian which is 'must have' for everyone in each game.
Finally adding some different rewards to easy ruins - sage and light units, that stopped an easy tactic to build almost nothing in the cities (expect 1-turners and some 3-turners) and play only with offered heroes with their allies.
These changes are already realized. And I don't think the game lost attractivity. So will be with other changes.

Things I offer to use are:
1. 2-3-hitters don't get their lost hits back immediately.
2. Food is applied for all units.
3. Engineers can make some changes in terrain.
4. Weak armies can escape or join to attackers.
Great to see these changes in the game.

[KGB]

1. 2-3-hitters don't get their lost hits back immediately.

I'm with Zaque in that this kind change needs a 'heal' skill to allow some units (or heroes) to heal others.

Another alternative would be to charge 1/2 of a units remaining movement points if they take damage in battle but survive. The idea being that it took time to bandage wounds and recuperate leaving less time to move. So if a unit entered battle with 10 movement points left and took a hit (or 2 hits) and survived it would only have 5 movement points left after the battle. This helps prevent the super stacks from rampaging too far in 1 turn. This has the advantage of not needing any micromanagement.

2. Food is applied for all units.

We already have this concept. It's call upkeep in gold. Which you can assume pays wages for armies and supplies them with food. Trying to individually figure out which units are starving is going to be a nightmare of arguments. For example, imagine your stack is outside my city. You claim you are starving my city. But meanwhile between your stack and your nearest city I have a stack of units. In my mind I am starving your stack because you are cut off from your city. There is no logical way to manage this without having food as a specific item in the game that has to be carried, moved, harvested, eaten etc and like Chazar I am not eager to add it. Esp since not all units eat in the manner humans do.

3. Engineers can make some changes in terrain.

I'm all for this. The build skill already allows construction of towers. It can be expanded to allow construction of roads, bridges, canals, ports etc. For example a L1 build skill would allow construction of just towers (scouts, Lt/Hv Inf as we have now). A L2 build skill would allow construction of towers and roads (say Giants). A L3 build skill would allow construction of towers, roads, bridges, canals, ports etc (say Dwarves). Then the hero 'build' skill would have some value as well. Just have to cost it all correctly but no reason it shouldn't work.

4. Weak armies can escape or join to attackers.

I don't quite understand this feature. Are you saying that weak units can simply run away from attackers or are you saying the attackers are so good they just auto-kill them without even the need for a battle and therefore avoid potential loss of any units (or even 1 hit which would matter in your new units don't get healed immediately request). I *definitely* don't want units joining the enemy and providing immediately free garrison defenders for their cities. I can assure you all units in my armies are like those of Japan in WWII. They fall on their own swords before surrendering much less defecting to the enemy! Perhaps yours are more like the Italians in WWII and used to changing sides

KGB

[Igor]

1. 2-3-hitters don't get their lost hits back immediately.

I'm with Zaque in that this kind change needs a 'heal' skill to allow some units (or heroes) to heal others.

This way or another way, armies which got damage should lose something after the battle. If they will lose move points such units should be marked somehow to be shown they need healing. I though think that they should lost hits.

2. Food is applied for all units.

We already have this concept. It's call upkeep in gold. Which you can assume pays wages for armies and supplies them with food. Trying to individually figure out which units are starving is going to be a nightmare of arguments. For example, imagine your stack is outside my city. You claim you are starving my city. But meanwhile between your stack and your nearest city I have a stack of units. In my mind I am starving your stack because you are cut off from your city. There is no logical way to manage this without having food as a specific item in the game that has to be carried, moved, harvested, eaten etc and like Chazar I am not eager to add it. Esp since not all units eat in the manner humans do.

To pay upkeep in gold, as it is now, is not the same as I offer to make.
Food should be a material thing. I offer two types of food: wheat and cattle. Food should be somewhere in game terrain, and special units called Peasants will be able to take it and carry to other units.
If a city is blocked by enemy's armies, peasants can carry food to this city by land or by water, if enemy lets them. And an army which is blocking a city also should have enough food to continue the siege.
We will need some special mark for every unit to see how much it is supplied by food.
KGB, your idea about payments in gold could be also the same realistic thing if gold will be carried to units. This way will let an enemy to be able to take the gold off while it is in the way to units.

3. Engineers can make some changes in terrain.

I'm all for this. The build skill already allows construction of towers. It can be expanded to allow construction of roads, bridges, canals, ports etc. For example a L1 build skill would allow construction of just towers (scouts, Lt/Hv Inf as we have now). A L2 build skill would allow construction of towers and roads (say Giants). A L3 build skill would allow construction of towers, roads, bridges, canals, ports etc (say Dwarves). Then the hero 'build' skill would have some value as well. Just have to cost it all correctly but no reason it shouldn't work.

Or this way that also good. Main idea that terrain should be changeable by players in process of game.

4. Weak armies can escape or join to attackers.

I don't quite understand this feature. Are you saying that weak units can simply run away from attackers or are you saying the attackers are so good they just auto-kill them without even the need for a battle and therefore avoid potential loss of any units (or even 1 hit which would matter in your new units don't get healed immediately request). I *definitely* don't want units joining the enemy and providing immediately free garrison defenders for their cities. I can assure you all units in my armies are like those of Japan in WWII. They fall on their own swords before surrendering much less defecting to the enemy! Perhaps yours are more like the Italians in WWII and used to changing sides

KGB, I think your offer is not correct because it is from 20th century.
I based my offer on real ancient wars. Usualy when a city was under siege, there were two main political parties which stand on one of two main streams: to continue war by defending city or to surrender in hope that attackers will not kill citizens of the city after surrendering. Sometimes party of war had the win, sometimes party of surrendering had the win.
I wish to include to the game the main thing: motivation to have a war. People in a city can change their sight when enemy is ten times more powerfull and almost no chance to win. They probably will not wish to die and will be ready to join to attackers in war against another cities. Especially if they were not be very glad of how central government of the country ruled by the city.
Citizens of each city just wished to survive. They could defend the city for some time and then to surrender if nobody came to help them.

I think we need all these changes in the game.