Lost hits

[Chazar]

Another alternative would be to charge 1/2 of a units remaining movement points if they take damage in battle but survive.

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.

I believe KGB meant that only the move points left for the active turn are reduced. Next turn, the unit is back to normal.

In that case, I am in favor of this suggestion, since it does not introduce another stat nor does it need an icon. All units already have their own movement points for the turn, so altering this is perfectly fine. Only works for attackers though.

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.

Nobody is arguing about changes in principle. I argue that your proposed changes will make the game less interesting for me. Don't ruin this already splendid game by introducing horrible micromanagement requirements.

Peasants carrying food sounds horrible to me, based on my experience with strategy games that indeed implement such features. It quickly becomes a boring drag.

Likewise my argument about regaining hitpoints after battle: I don't think this is a big deal. Certainly not big enough to warrant the introduction of a specialised icon! If healing should become a part of the game through the revised heroes, then fine. Otherwise, don't add complicated things without good reasons.

[Igor]

Another alternative would be to charge 1/2 of a units remaining movement points if they take damage in battle but survive.

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.

I believe KGB meant that only the move points left for the active turn are reduced. Next turn, the unit is back to normal.
In that case, I am in favor of this suggestion, since it does not introduce another stat nor does it need an icon. All units already have their own movement points for the turn, so altering this is perfectly fine. Only works for attackers though.

This thing in your sight becomes to mean nothing. Units already spent all or almost all their move points before they reached an object to attack it. No sense to reduce move points after they are already spent.
I think KGB spoke about long loss of move points. But on my sight would be better when units will loss hits which they lost in last battle, then these hits will be got back with one of 2 ways: either by special ability of some units/heroes (as Zaque offered and KGB agreed with this) or automatically in some turns. Both ways we need to have an icon to show how many hits is for such units.

I would also offer the third way to get back lost hits: to spend some gold for this, 100 for Heavy Cavalry, 90 for Giant, 200 for Elemental.

[KGB]

Peasants carrying food sounds horrible to me, based on my experience with strategy games that indeed implement such features. It quickly becomes a boring drag.

Agreed 100%. Why would anyone want to move non-combat units around a map harvesting grain/cattle like they were playing Civilization. If I wanted to play Civilization, I'd play it. Plus how would this work on maps that don't have terrain that would grow grain/cattle (ie maps with mostly water or hills or lava etc)? I don't think players want to have to worry about such details in a strategic wargame.

This thing in your sight becomes to mean nothing. Units already spent all or almost all their move points before they reached an object to attack it. No sense to reduce move points after they are already spent.
I think KGB spoke about long loss of move points. But on my sight would be better when units will loss hits which they lost in last battle, then these hits will be got back with one of 2 ways: either by special ability of some units/heroes (as Zaque offered and KGB agreed with this) or automatically in some turns. Both ways we need to have an icon to show how many hits is for such units.

I would also offer the third way to get back lost hits: to spend some gold for this, 100 for Heavy Cavalry, 90 for Giant, 200 for Elemental.

Actually Chazar understood what I meant. You lose the movement points only for the rest of your turn. Next turn you are back to full movement. The idea is simply to prevent super strong stacks from moving too far and winning too many battles unless they are willing to leave damaged units behind. Remember only *1* unit can ever have damage on it in a stack (the last one in battle).

Igor, exactly how long are you imagining units remain damaged? One thing *all* your ideas (food, non-healing damage) require is that game sets a 'time frame' to 1 turn. That time frame could be a week, 2 weeks or a month or even a few days. Otherwise food and damage don't have any meaning especially as it would relate to starving or healing etc. I personally imagine 1 game turn = 2 weeks time. This roughly seems about right based on movement and what you can do (hire and board ships, fight a couple of different battles, build a tower, rebuild a city etc). If 2 weeks is the time frame then damage would be 100% healed by your next turn as that's plenty of time for recovery from wounds, replacements to arrive for a few lost men etc.

I personally don't want damaged units remaining damaged for multiple turns. It should simply be until the start of your next turn. That gives your opponent time to act on that damage on their turn.

As far as your healing costs go, 100 gold for Hv Calv is insane. Gold is hard to come by. 1 Hv Calv unit is insignificant given you can buy brand Hv Calv production for 500 gold. More like 5 gold to heal 1 Hv Calv unit. I would only spend 100 gold to heal a key hero or a unit like a Red Dragon.

KGB

[Igor]

Why would anyone want to move non-combat units around a map harvesting grain/cattle like they were playing Civilization. If I wanted to play Civilization, I'd play it. Plus how would this work on maps that don't have terrain that would grow grain/cattle (ie maps with mostly water or hills or lava etc)? I don't think players want to have to worry about such details in a strategic wargame.

Best game should includ fightings and supplying as well. I played an Ukrainian game Cossacks where player need to supply a row of differen resources, including gold, for being able to build different buildings including barracks for new kind of warriors. Very good game. Supplying one or two kinds of resources will only make the game better.

Units already spent all or almost all their move points before they reached an object to attack it. No sense to reduce move points after they are already spent.

You lose the movement points only for the rest of your turn. Next turn you are back to full movement.

How is described above in the quotation, reducing of movement points to the end of current turn has no sense.
I think losing hits is more applicable. The question is how to give back lost hits to units.
Three ways:
- they will get them automatically in some turns,
- some kind of units will be able to heal them,
- some sum of gold should be paid for healing.

Igor, exactly how long are you imagining units remain damaged? One thing *all* your ideas (food, non-healing damage) require is that game sets a 'time frame' to 1 turn. That time frame could be a week, 2 weeks or a month or even a few days. Otherwise food and damage don't have any meaning especially as it would relate to starving or healing etc. I personally imagine 1 game turn = 2 weeks time. This roughly seems about right based on movement and what you can do (hire and board ships, fight a couple of different battles, build a tower, rebuild a city etc). If 2 weeks is the time frame then damage would be 100% healed by your next turn as that's plenty of time for recovery from wounds, replacements to arrive for a few lost men etc.

I don't think that 1 turn = 2 weeks of real time. Single scout can rebuild 2-3 cities per turn, that make it unbelievable in two weeks. I also don't think that such comparing is necessary at all.
By the way, this is base for new idea - to make time for rebuilding a city longer, for example 2-3 turns.

As far as your healing costs go, 100 gold for Hv Calv is insane. Gold is hard to come by. 1 Hv Calv unit is insignificant given you can buy brand Hv Calv production for 500 gold. More like 5 gold to heal 1 Hv Calv unit. I would only spend 100 gold to heal a key hero or a unit like a Red Dragon.

KGB, you probably don't feel this price.
When you heal 2 Heavy Cavalry having 1 hit each it means you raise total number of hits to 4, that is to make two units instead of one (i.e. 2 strong units instead of 2 damaged) - 4 hits instead of 2. That means you produce a new unit of Heavy Cavalry by healing two damaged.
How much cost to create a new unit of Heavy Cavalry? It depends of situation and place on the map. Deep in rear it costs not too much, but at front the worth of every unit is much higher. When you attack an opponent's city or his field army, using your 2 damaged Heavy Cavalry, you probably prefer to spend some gold for healing them than to build producting of Heavy Cavalry somewhere in city. That is because 1 new Heavy Cavalry unit (2 strong instead 2 damaged) here and now is better than it will be in some time and in other place. Heavy Cavalry production costs 500 gold. If price of healing 1 hit will be 100 gold, that means that you get a new unit of Heavy Cavalry in necessary time and place for only 200 gold.

[KGB]

I played an Ukrainian game Cossacks where player need to supply a row of differen resources, including gold, for being able to built different buildings including barracks for new kind of warriors. Very good game. Supplying one or two kinds of resources will only make the game better.

This idea was already tried and rejected. All the gold sites you see were once different resources you had to gather to build special units/special abilities. Very quickly it was realized that it made the game boring as more time was spent trying to locate and manage resources than there was on building armies and conquering the world. So all the sites were just changed to supply gold.

There is nothing wrong with games like Cossaks or Civilization. Many people enjoy such games. But they just aren't Warbarons. Warbarons is about conquering the world on a large scale, not managing the resources of an empire on a small scale.

I don't think that 1 turn = 2 weeks of real time. Single scout can rebuild 2-3 cities per turn, that make it unbelievable in two weeks. I also don't think that such comparing is necessary at all.
By the way, this is base for new idea - to make time for rebuilding a city longer, for example 2-3 turns.

The idea of multiple turns required to build/rebuild things has long ago been rejected. Other than units taking multiple turns to produce, everything in the game happens 'right now' and not over the course of multiple turns.

That's what makes the game easy to learn/play.

KGB, you probably don't feel this price.
How much cost to create a new unit of Heavy Cavalry? It depends of situation and place on the map. Deep in rear it costs not too much, but at front the worth of every unit is much higher.

I understand what you mean. But the cost of 100 is only worth it *if* both of the following things apply:
1) You can attack an enemy city with this Cavalry stack
2) You will be >90% to win with 2 hits and <90% to win with 1 hit

Anything else isn't worth 100 gold. Just killing a few enemy units in the open isn't worth 100 gold to heal 1 unit. You have to be able to do more damage to the enemy than 100 gold worth. The only way that's possible is to conquer an enemy city and raze it. The only time 1 extra hit is going to *absolutely* matter is if it takes you to a guaranteed win (moves you over 90%). That's not going to happen enough to matter. At least not to me as I'd never buy healing at that price.

KGB

[Igor]

I played an Ukrainian game Cossacks where player need to supply a row of differen resources, including gold, for being able to built different buildings including barracks for new kind of warriors. Very good game. Supplying one or two kinds of resources will only make the game better.

This idea was already tried and rejected. All the gold sites you see were once different resources you had to gather to build special units/special abilities. Very quickly it was realized that it made the game boring as more time was spent trying to locate and manage resources than there was on building armies and conquering the world. So all the sites were just changed to supply gold.

I don't think that 1 turn = 2 weeks of real time. Single scout can rebuild 2-3 cities per turn, that make it unbelievable in two weeks. I also don't think that such comparing is necessary at all.
By the way, this is base for new idea - to make time for rebuilding a city longer, for example 2-3 turns.

The idea of multiple turns required to build/rebuild things has long ago been rejected. Other than units taking multiple turns to produce, everything in the game happens 'right now' and not over the course of multiple turns.
That's what makes the game easy to learn/play.

I don't remember that idea of using resourses or spending some turns to build a city was ever applied here. May be it was in other game...

I offer to try it in 3rd season of this year. To make this season as a test one to see how it will work.

KGB, you probably don't feel this price.
How much cost to create a new unit of Heavy Cavalry? It depends of situation and place on the map. Deep in rear it costs not too much, but at front the worth of every unit is much higher.

I understand what you mean. But the cost of 100 is only worth it *if* both of the following things apply:
1) You can attack an enemy city with this Cavalry stack
2) You will be >90% to win with 2 hits and <90% to win with 1 hit
KGB

Well, KGB you really don't feel the price of units at front. Sometimes one unit can bring the win of a battle.
When I have advantage 60/40, I would spend 100 gold some times without any thinking if it helps to raise advantage to 70/30 in a battle which I see as important enough.
Other way you may save this gold to the moment of your surrendering

I see 100 gold as little price for healing a Heavy Cavalry unit in a place you need it. Probably nobody will spend gold to heal units in rear.

And also about other units. KGB, what the difference between payments for offered hero with one red Dragon or without him (only hero)? Something about a thousand gold, right? This is a price of one available Red Dragon.
You have two damaged Red Dragons and you heal them that brings to you second unit of Red Dragon (4 hits instead of 2). As it shown above, price of one available Red Dragon is 1000 gold per 2 hits together, then one hit costs 500 gold - this is in fact (as it is now). I offer to use this price for healing 1 hit of this unit.

[Igor]

I'm remembered that I played in one game almost same as Warbarons, only through server. This game is called Militarizm. Also Ukrainian one btw. It's a game about WWII - with tanks, cannons, airplanes. All units (on land, in air or sea) need to get some resouces to be able to move and fight. If they spend all their resouces they could only stand and couldn't beat back. To get necessary recourses there is a technical car which can supplied resources to every unit in game.
This is very interesting game, hundreds of people played it in it's best time. I remember nobody said: 'I'm boring to manage by recourses with technical car...'
Also in this game all units had damage after battles and they needed to heal these damages in cities or with technical cars. And nobody said "I don't like micromanagement...'
I think we need to stop crying (really all looks very good)
I offer to try these new things for a season or two.

[KGB]

I don't remember that idea of using resourses or spending some turns to build a city was ever applied here. May be it was in other game...

It was in this game. A *long* time ago now. Back when the version of the game were still called Beta1, Beta2. If I recall correctly it was around the time of Beta2, about 3 years ago now. That was when the sites were first created.

You collected resources such as wood (forest site), iron (mine site in hills), gas (swamps site) etc. These could be used to produce units with better strength / hits / movement etc.

It wasn't tried very long before it wasn't found to be much fun. Plus it made maps even more unbalanced if you didn't have the right resources or enough of the right resources etc.

Well, KGB you really don't feel the price of units at front. Sometimes one unit can bring the win of a battle.
When I have advantage 60/40, I would spend 100 gold some times without any thinking if it helps to raise advantage to 70/30 in a battle which I see as important enough.
Other way you may save this gold to the moment of your surrendering

I see 100 gold as little price for healing a Heavy Cavalry unit in a place you need it. Probably nobody will spend gold to heal units in rear.

Units in the rear are never damaged since they aren't in battle

It costs 100 gold to raise a city from L2 to L3 and give +5 defense to every unit in the city. That's already enough gold that many warlords don't spend it even though it gives +5 combat to up to 32 units. You want it to cost 100 gold for 1 hit on 1 unit and think players will pay it.

Paying 100 gold to increase your chances from 60/40 to 70/30 is a huge gamble of important money. That battle has to majorly affect the game (raze/plunder a city, kill the best enemy hero type battle) or else it's a bad risk of your money because 90% of the time (any result other than 61-70) the result is the same as it already was without spending the money.

Lets put it this way. If it costs 100 gold to heal 1 pt on a Hv Calv, I'll be happy to play without any healing for any of my units and you can pay 100 gold to heal 1 pt on Hv Calv. I won't mind in the least not being able to pay for healing as it will be an absolute useless feature for me.

And also about other units. KGB, what the difference between payments for offered hero with one red Dragon or without him (only hero)? Something about a thousand gold, right? This is a price of one available Red Dragon.
You have two damaged Red Dragons and you heal them that brings to you second unit of Red Dragon (4 hits instead of 2). As it shown above, price of one available Red Dragon is 1000 gold per 2 hits together, then one hit costs 500 gold - this is in fact (as it is now). I offer to use this price for healing 1 hit of this unit.

Statements like this say you totally misunderstand the value of units. Except I know you are a good player and actually do understand unit values.

I would pay 1000 gold for 1 Crow with +10 Morale bonus. I would not pay 500 gold (or even 200 gold) to heal a Red Dragon from 1 hit to 2 hits. 90% of the value of the Red Dragon is the +10 morale bonus and has nothing to do with the 2nd hit. If my 1 hit Dragon ever saw battle I am making a terrible mistake estimating battles. So I am happy to have my 1 hit Dragon fight at the end of my fight order and give a +10 morale bonus and save my gold.

KGB

[Igor]

It was in this game. A *long* time ago now. Back when the version of the game were still called Beta1, Beta2. If I recall correctly it was around the time of Beta2, about 3 years ago now. That was when the sites were first created.
You collected resources such as wood (forest site), iron (mine site in hills), gas (swamps site) etc. These could be used to produce units with better strength / hits / movement etc.
It wasn't tried very long before it wasn't found to be much fun. Plus it made maps even more unbalanced if you didn't have the right resources or enough of the right resources etc.

Three years... very ancient time in scale of the game.

It wasn't the thing which I offer now. There were sites set at the start of a game, their location couldn't be changed.
I offer that every player will get some quantity of food at start of a game, may be enough for using during 5-6 turns, then player himself will create places where his food will grow. What terrains it will be? Grass of course, may be sand or forest or even hills and swamp (but lesser harvest), probably not mountains.
Only Peasants will be able to organize such places. Harvest can be taken one time in 2-3-5 turns (the same as new units are being born), number of turns is connected with size of harvest.

I think that too many number of resources is not applicable now. Maximum 2 resources - food and gold. Let's start from food.

Units in the rear are never damaged since they aren't in battle

It costs 100 gold to raise a city from L2 to L3 and give +5 defense to every unit in the city. That's already enough gold that many warlords don't spend it even though it gives +5 combat to up to 32 units. You want it to cost 100 gold for 1 hit on 1 unit and think players will pay it.

Paying 100 gold to increase your chances from 60/40 to 70/30 is a huge gamble of important money. That battle has to majorly affect the game (raze/plunder a city, kill the best enemy hero type battle) or else it's a bad risk of your money because 90% of the time (any result other than 61-70) the result is the same as it already was without spending the money.

Lets put it this way. If it costs 100 gold to heal 1 pt on a Hv Calv, I'll be happy to play without any healing for any of my units and you can pay 100 gold to heal 1 pt on Hv Calv. I won't mind in the least not being able to pay for healing as it will be an absolute useless feature for me.

I would pay 1000 gold for 1 Crow with +10 Morale bonus. I would not pay 500 gold (or even 200 gold) to heal a Red Dragon from 1 hit to 2 hits. 90% of the value of the Red Dragon is the +10 morale bonus and has nothing to do with the 2nd hit. If my 1 hit Dragon ever saw battle I am making a terrible mistake estimating battles. So I am happy to have my 1 hit Dragon fight at the end of my fight order and give a +10 morale bonus and save my gold.
KGB

Good note, you absolutely aren't forced to heal units. Play with Heavy Cavalry with 1 hit. It's on your choice. I think that units should keep their damage after battles. Then to heal them or not - let each player to decide this.

By the way, may be to include healing with two ways: with cost of gold or with special ability of units and heroes (without gold). For let players to choose.

Speaking about healing with gold, I would again show example with Red Dragon.
Probably it's possible to count definite cost of every unit if let him (in a test game) to be offered with hero (for units with 2+ hits). Then to count average value of cost for every unit, using this way.
This will be cost of one available unit with all his hits. Cost of healing (for one hit) of a unit is cost of this unit, splitted on number of his hits. (As it shown in example with Red Dragon, if cost of one available Red Dragon is 1000 gold then cost of healing of Red Dragon is 500 gold).

I used Red Dragon as a unit in the example because I don't remember exactly the price of available (offered with hero) Elemental, Green Dragon, Demon etc. These units is 'meat' of good stack and they need all their hits. Then, as it's sometimes said: 'fight was till triarii' - Red Dragon will be very necessary with all his hits. Hope you remember some of your games where your main hero was saved and won the battle with his last hit (when all dragons already slain).
Cost of healing of heroes should be more than healing of units.

[Igor]

And also good to use function of engineering, which is OK for all who take part in the discussion.

I also offer to try a 'deserting' function when very weak defenders will surrender without fighting. Or even will be added to opponent's army. This will stimulate players dont leave weak defenders to die in cities.