Solution for (dis)advantage when NAP ends

[KGB]

Maze,

If it *IS* randomly losing your stacks and you are afraid something that bad happen to your pumped up stack, what's the difference with a high ambush stack with cheap units? Same randomness, same pumped up stack you can lose against a "cheap" ambush stack and benefit the weaker player.

Big big difference.

A cheap stack with ambush requires a player to invest in such units (gold+time to build+cities need to build them+defend such cities from being captured), requires that player to accumulate them in a single spot (moving/vectoring), requires them to manage to effectively use them against the hero stack (hiding them/boosted movement etc). That's 3 different skills a player is required to do in order to ambush a big stack.

Your random city roll requires the player to do NOTHING. Just wait for an NAP to end and hope they kill nearby enemies. There is no skill needed here.

And I am not talking about "something magical that killed them" but a city that makes an army desert like in real life warfare. And it's not "an empty city" like it's not an empty city producing the goods and creating the income. A non-defended city is not an empty city. Sure military-wise no-one will blame you for calling a non-defended city empty in Warbarons (we all do so), but when talking about a new feature that can make an army desert, it's not "magic": production does not come from a box: normal citizens were trained to become high infantry etc. and normal citizens are producing swords, catapults, ... and even the walls that you can upgrade.

If such peasants were capable of killing armies why aren't they always doing it? Why only as part of an NAP. Why doesn't every city have a chance to slay every stack that comes near it regardless of an NAP? What's the magic of the NAP? We have NAPs in real life (NATO) and I don't believe for 1 second that if the USA went to war with a NATO country it has a base in (like say Germany) that a bunch of German office workers would be able to kill trained armed soldiers on the US bases. Heck, only 150,000 soldiers in Iraq were enough to control 31 million civilians and it wasn't much different in ancient times (only a small number of Roman soldiers were needed to control places like all of Britain).

And so what if a weaker player wants to risk his stack (at let's say 70% risk to lose it) and hopes to be able to hurt you in case the odds are against you? Again that can happen with a cheap ambush stack vs your pumped up stack as well and is part of the game and strategy. But which player would do something like that? Most cases are not when there are other players involved but when it's just the two of you left, and if you are really that much stronger than him and he hopes to be able to raze your cities, why can't you do the same with not one but three or four stacks? A loooooot must happen before the balance flips over from one player winning to the other.

If you aren't risking everything when you are WAY behind then you are doing something wrong. The further behind you get the bigger and crazier the risks you should be taking. If you play or watch Poker it's just like when someone is down to a small stack of chips and keeps going all-in. The only way they can get back in the game is by winning a bunch of lucky all-in calls, not by trying to steal some blinds and gradually work their way back in. Or imagine you go to Vegas with 50K and want to double your money. Are you better off putting it all on 1 hand of blackjack (or whatever your favorite game is) or trying to win it $50 a hand? It's obvious the best odds come from playing 1 hand for 50K. Same in Warbarons. When far behind you should totally risk a hero clash when you have only 15% chance to win. When far ahead you should never risk an 85% hero battle because there is no reason to take such a risk.

And flipping the balance can happen a lot easier than you think. I've done it in some games on the strength of a hero showdown followed by a quick raze fest into their cities. In a 25-15 city game razing 5 cities might be enough to get you back in if it's the right 5 cities (his best production). There is a big psychological factor in Warbarons (like in Poker) you can learn take advantage of. I have seen many games given away after a bad hero beat (lose an 85% battle) when a player becomes despondent over the battle or is over reliant on their heroes and can't play without them or a player just gives up if they lose 4-5 cities to razing because they can't handle losses.

I like the idea of having a limited set of armies and e.g. good vs evil. There are already a couple of maps having such starting positions but after a couple of turns no-one remembers who is who and it's actually not relevant anymore due to the having the full set of units available for production.

I suspect it's something for future releases. Or at least I hope that kind of option comes into the game at some point so that you don't see Elves freely mixing with Orcs type thing.

KGB

[smursh]

KGB, I think what you propose is going to be too complicated for novice players. The best solution is just to eliminate the NAP altogether. You can still create alliances by sending messages to the other players. No need to worry about advantage gained when the NAP ends since you choose the time. Keep a line of scouts near your border, and if your ally moves too much too close then attack him.

[KGB]

Smursh,

What proposal? I didn't make any regarding NAPs other than to ask for durations to be as short as 2 turns (you can still sign longer ones) so players have to literally renew them every other turn. This prevents blocking or sending armies into an NAP players lands because there isn't time to do it.

If you eliminate NAP's then you probably also need to eliminate Undercover mode. How can you form even a temporary alliance with an Undercover player when you have nothing to judge their word by? The NAP at least enforces an agreement when dealing with Undercover players.

KGB

[Chazar]

How about allowing attacking outside of cities in the last turn of an NAP?

Although I still don't see the big problem with NAPs as they are now (apart from the silly road-block shenangians), this would be an acceptable compromise.

However, I cannot see how it is the game's fault if you sign an NAP?! You may already agree upon Soft-NAPs through the messaging system. NAPs are an option if you want something stronger, so don't blame the game. I don't sign NAPs with everyone, but sometimes I do. Ok, I have to admit that I did use the system to my advantages (like everything else in the game) but that is what it is for, and it is the other players fault for not realizing that the conditions of the NAP were not in their favour - it is part of the game to decide what is a fair offer and what is not. Sometimes my judgement is off, and then I am at a disadvantage for the NAP I offered or accepted, but then I cannot blame anyone else but myself.

[Maze]

KGB,
I'll try and shorten my posts as I don't want to stretch this endlessly...

That's 3 different skills a player is required to do in order to ambush a big stack.

Your random city roll requires the player to do NOTHING. Just wait for an NAP to end and hope they kill nearby enemies. There is no skill needed here.

Still it's a way cheaper stack vs a way stronger one, regardless of the strategy. And I am not talking about the city doing anything or nothing in terms of strategy but in terms of the game giving a solution for this (dis)advantage for an NAP. = STAY AWAY FROM MY CITIES.
If you say that the "second player's advantage" would change to a "weaker player's advantage" I can only say that, speaking of random, being the second player is more "random" than being the weaker one. And like ambush is a "nice way" to give weaker players (or whatever player against a huge stack) a chance, you can consider this a "nice thing" too. Read further why this feature would in fact be a fair new element for a weaker player in a truce.

If such peasants were capable of killing armies why aren't they always doing it? Why only as part of an NAP. Why doesn't every city have a chance to slay every stack that comes near it regardless of an NAP? What's the magic of the NAP?

1. They are not killing them, just "influencing" them to desert.
2. Why only as part of an NAP? If you read my post, you see that I in fact suggest to make it possible for all cities in all circumstances as indeed it doesn't only happen when in peace. But the game "needs" it for this NAP issue in the first place while "for all cities at all times" it would be a nice to have feature. And I would say the influence is minimal during war but much bigger when you are in "friendly" mode. Approaching the city and not in "war mode" but just sitting there and doing what? Probably drinking, partying, making love to the city's virgins and eventually ... staying there = deserting = General KGB roaring: "What? My super stack that I ordered to sit and wait till the truce is over "disappeared"? They joined the enemy??? Roargh!!!"

We have NAPs in real life (NATO) and I don't believe for 1 second that if the USA went to war with a NATO country it has a base in (like say Germany) that a bunch of German office workers would be able to kill trained armed soldiers on the US bases. Heck, only 150,000 soldiers in Iraq were enough to control 31 million civilians and it wasn't much different in ancient times (only a small number of Roman soldiers were needed to control places like all of Britain).

Again, not kill but influence them, after which they either turn into citizens (= disappear from the map) or into enemy army units. And figures of desertion can be found everywhere. First link I can recommend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertion

If you aren't risking everything when you are WAY behind then you are doing something wrong. The further behind you get the bigger and crazier the risks you should be taking. [...] And flipping the balance can happen a lot easier than you think. [...]

Yes you have to risk everything when you are behind, yes you can flip the balance in many ways now already. In my suggested "Influence Zone" situation the "way stronger player" has too make one additional (strategic) decision: "Hm, he will push into my lands going bezerk and try and flip the balance. Shall I put my strongest stack in his lands too? I have two or three strong stacks left anyway. Or I just stay away and if he is lucky and his stack doesn't desert and he gets to raze 4-5 or even 10 cities, I will have to wait and do the same in a turn or two." The "way stronger player" can wait two turns can't he? Do two turns make the difference that often? If so, then he is not "way stronger".

Another element that comes to mind now. Another additional (strategic) decision players have to make. When entering a truce, I do it most of the time for one or more of the following reasons:
- It is early in the game and if Player X and I fight each other, we both lose. Let's join our forces for 10-15 turns;
- Player Y is getting too strong, we have to join our (weaker) forces;

and sometimes also
- I want to make him THINK that we are equally strong or that player Y is getting to strong (while in fact I am the stronger one)

In the first two situations of course you are not saying "hey I am not playing to win", of course in the end you hope you will benefit from whatever happens. But during the NAP I talk a lot with my temporary "partner" and most of the time we try to respect the balance. My suggestion to have this Influence zone thing will in fact add another dimension in pre-NAP phase: you will have to think twice if you really want an NAP for balance of both of you against the rest, or if you want to screw your partner in the end. You better think twice of how many turns you want this truce to last and you better want to keep things balanced while having this truce. If balance is proven, the other player will not come and take the (small) odds to raze your cities. If after 2-3 turns in a 16 turns truce the other player sees you are way stronger than you said you were and start conquering the world leaving him with the minor share, you better watch out when the truce ends because then fair enough he will risk everything and come and say more than "HI". If it really wasn't your intention to be the "absolute single ruler" but just eliminate the other players or at least the strongest opponent and if it really was your intention to "let's fight the others together and go for the final battle against each other (of course this only makes sense if we stay balanced") there are many ways to keep things balanced: money, cities, letting the other player "rest"/gain forces while you fight, ...

Again, installing an Influence Zone would be fair enough and an additional (positive, not negative) element in the game AND at the same time removing the infection of being dependent on each player's position in the turn: at the moment, if you are first in the turn you can sign a truce with everyone while if you are last you have a huge disadvantage and you better think twice before signing a truce. (As said, you cannot get more random than this.)

Failed keeping it short.
But still one thing to add: I don't like the idea of a 2 turns truce. If I have a truce with you, I want to clear our mutual borders and push North, East, ... together. With e.g. only 5-6 turns remaining, I either renew the truce or I reorganize my forces for the new war situation in 5-6 turns. If two players start South in Hadesha, they either fight each other and control the South but risk being eliminated both or sign a truce and push North together. Actually Hadesha FFA 8 players can only be won if you sign a truce with 3-5 players and fight the remaining 2-4 players (of which preferably only 1-3 are your real opponents and the other somewhere far away.)

The only added value of a 2 turns truce (in case the NAP as it is now would be removed) would be that you cannot "by accident" attack your temporary "partner". Otherwise I see no added value to it and just an informal truce would suffice.

[KGB]

Chazar,

How about allowing attacking outside of cities in the last turn of an NAP?

Fantastic suggestion!! In fact I'd expand that to the last 2 turns of an NAP could allow attacking outside of cities.


Maze,

Still it's a way cheaper stack vs a way stronger one, regardless of the strategy. And I am not talking about the city doing anything or nothing in terms of strategy but in terms of the game giving a solution for this (dis)advantage for an NAP. = STAY AWAY FROM MY CITIES.
If you say that the "second player's advantage" would change to a "weaker player's advantage" I can only say that, speaking of random, being the second player is more "random" than being the weaker one. And like ambush is a "nice way" to give weaker players (or whatever player against a huge stack) a chance, you can consider this a "nice thing" too. Read further why this feature would in fact be a fair new element for a weaker player in a truce.

What cheaper stack are you talking about? Cities aren't required to have any defenders in them. Or maybe there is only 1 Hv Inf in it. How would 1 Hv Inf ambush a super stack of 8 men that they might not even be able to reach (sitting over water or on mountains)? That's not even possible under the current combat rules. If anything it should be the *opposite* of what you suggest. If a powerful stack sits near a city with only a few defenders they should wet their pants and surrender unconditionally without even a fight.

Also depending on how you implemented it (1 roll for the whole stack or 1 roll for each unit in the stack) players would quickly realize they can cheese this too by splitting an 8 stack into 4 groups of 2 reducing the risk of losing all their armies.

As for giving weaker players a chance, why? This isn't a game of socialism. Why should weaker players get some extra chance to win? There is nothing in this idea that would improve the game, only randomize it more and serious annoy players who lost units to this feature.

1. They are not killing them, just "influencing" them to desert.
2. Why only as part of an NAP? If you read my post, you see that I in fact suggest to make it possible for all cities in all circumstances as indeed it doesn't only happen when in peace. But the game "needs" it for this NAP issue in the first place while "for all cities at all times" it would be a nice to have feature. And I would say the influence is minimal during war but much bigger when you are in "friendly" mode. Approaching the city and not in "war mode" but just sitting there and doing what? Probably drinking, partying, making love to the city's virgins and eventually ... staying there = deserting = General KGB roaring: "What? My super stack that I ordered to sit and wait till the truce is over "disappeared"? They joined the enemy??? Roargh!!!"

1) Assumes you can influence them. Unlike real world where there are only humans this game features mostly units that wouldn't be capable of deserting (Spiders, Ghosts) or want to desert (Elves to an Orc city) and ESPECIALLY to a weaker side (if anything the weaker player should suffer more desertions). Is there going to some table where each unit has a likelihood of deserting?
2) The doesn't *need* this feature. The game just needs a way to fix the cheese tactics used in NAP's. Chazar's suggestion above perfectly fixes it in my mind without the need for anything like this.
3) If such a desertion feature were to come into the game then the next thing asked for would be a way to pay units to never desert or have it tied to in some way to morale. So the whole thing would end up being over come by gold or high morale leading us right back where we are with an added complication of desertion in the game.

Failed keeping it short.

No problem. I love to ramble on as well

All the reasons you cite for enter an NAP are indeed the ones players use. I just disagree with over complicating the game with zones of influence that would require special programming and map coloring followed by randomly vaporizing whole stacks. In a good strategy game players earn what they get by demonstrating / employing skills. What this does is bypass all that much in the same way buying a lottery ticket can make you a millionaire. Technically you can say you are self-made (you did buy the ticket) but no one would seriously consider you a self-made millionaire who started a business and worked hard for a long time.

But still one thing to add: I don't like the idea of a 2 turns truce.

Then don't sign one for 2 turns??? I am not saying ONLY 2 turns but merely allow the shortest one to start at 2 turns instead of 4. All the other choices can remain.

KGB

[Maze]

KGB,

When discussing becomes intellectually unfair babbling I prefer to shorten it and eventually leave. Let's give it one more shot.

What cheaper stack are you talking about?

Talking about the same "cheap ambush" stack vs an "expensive pumped up" stack like you see them in many discussions lately. Why can an orc kill a red dragon with ambush and a City not influence an army to desert? Not talking about what you would desire a game to look like but talking about a possible feature.

Cities aren't required to have any defenders in them. Or maybe there is only 1 Hv Inf in it. How would 1 Hv Inf ambush a super stack of 8 men that they might not even be able to reach (sitting over water or on mountains)? That's not even possible under the current combat rules. If anything it should be the *opposite* of what you suggest. If a powerful stack sits near a city with only a few defenders they should wet their pants and surrender unconditionally without even a fight.

Again, it's the city that is influencing, not the presence/absence of one or twenty military units. Where this influence comes from is not relevant. (High income, money for culture instead of military production, or even like you stated the strength of a player / empire can be taken into account, why not?)

Also depending on how you implemented it (1 roll for the whole stack or 1 roll for each unit in the stack) players would quickly realize they can cheese this too by splitting an 8 stack into 4 groups of 2 reducing the risk of losing all their armies.

No-one said that the implementation shouldn't be optimized nor that I had the idea ready including the coding plus implementation, plus the whole market research on pros and cons and players' opinions.
And splitting your stack: well, why not do it unit by unit and indeed lose only unit per unit and have 30% for a unit surviving hence 30% of your stack surviving. Is that the "risk everything stack" you were talking about if your aren't risking anything anymore, even if the dice roll would be like you say? Or is that the stack of the weaker player that the "way stronger" player should be afraid of if only 2 or 3 units are surviving?

As for giving weaker players a chance, why? This isn't a game of socialism. Why should weaker players get some extra chance to win? There is nothing in this idea that would improve the game, only randomize it more and serious annoy players who lost units to this feature.

I was not talking about socialism whatsoever. Only comparing with to orc's ambush skill that allows him to kill a red dragon from time to time. Also I don't mind if a player gets annoyed by having to stay away from an opponent's cities when he is in truce with him or if he gets annoyed by screwing a player by signing a truce with him while in fact he is not offering the other player the balance and fight together he was aiming for and then in the end see the weaker player screw him back to thank him.

Assumes you can influence them. Unlike real world where there are only humans this game features mostly units that wouldn't be capable of deserting (Spiders, Ghosts) or want to desert (Elves to an Orc city) and ESPECIALLY to a weaker side (if anything the weaker player should suffer more desertions). Is there going to some table where each unit has a likelihood of deserting?

I am sure you can come up with better arguments. Just like you can come up with many examples to show that a game needs simplification. Spiders get morale, dwarves make everyone travel at move cost one (makes me think of that hilarious post someone wrote a couple of days ago about the imagination needed to "understand/accept" dwarves' and elves' skill)

2) The doesn't *need* this feature. The game just needs a way to fix the cheese tactics used in NAP's. Chazar's suggestion above perfectly fixes it in my mind without the need for anything like this.

I agree Chazar's suggestion can perfectly fix this too.

3) If such a desertion feature were to come into the game then the next thing asked for would be a way to pay units to never desert or have it tied to in some way to morale. So the whole thing would end up being over come by gold or high morale leading us right back where we are with an added complication of desertion in the game.

Also here I am sure you can come up with way better examples in the game already where you could say the same.

I just disagree with over complicating the game with zones of influence that would require special programming and map coloring followed by randomly vaporizing whole stacks.

No map coloring required, you just see yourself when you are close to somewhere you shouldn't be and IF you are in a zone that you are not sure, a simple mouse-over will do. Read my previous post. It's linear distance, not rocket science.

In a good strategy game players earn what they get by demonstrating / employing skills. [...] lottery ticket [...] self-made millionaire[...]

Seriously? ...
OK, last shot. What skill do you see/demonstrate/employ in getting to go first in a turn? Why do City Influence or other "random but unknown in Warbarons or its ancestors" features (e.g. units have 2% chance to die from starvation, illness, ...) suddenly make a game "bad"? In my opinion this has only to do with narrow-minded "let's stick to features we know from other games where Warbarons is inspired on" and (also seen) "Warbarons must add features X and Y because Game XYZ (where Warbarons is inspired on) had it too." Yes, Warbarons is inspired on other games (I haven't played them myself) but is NOT a copy. I really cannot see the weakness in "randomly or statistically dying from illness or starvation" with or without thematic (terrain, distance from city, ...) reasons. Nor do I see a weakness in Desertion (+ whatever variables it is based on). If units can statistically die from starvation, then you take that into consideration for your strategy. Just like Ambush is part of the game. Just like even the unit's strength is part of the game and a stronger unit can lose from a weaker one due to these same statistics. Unlike Stratego or Chess. Yes you can say these would be additional (and complicating) features and leave it open for discussion if the game isn't already too complicated or how far it can go before it will reach the max desirable complexity, but don't dramatize and throw in comparisons with making a game a lottery nor with self-made men theories.

[KGB]

Maze,

Talking about the same "cheap ambush" stack vs an "expensive pumped up" stack like you see them in many discussions lately. Why can an orc kill a red dragon with ambush and a City not influence an army to desert? Not talking about what you would desire a game to look like but talking about a possible feature.

You are asking why can't a city influence armies to desert? Sure it can. Anything CAN be added. The question is really more: Should such a feature be added. As in what does it bring to the table for game play. What are the pro's/con's of such a feature. Is it purely random do players have control over the feature. etc.

Now lets look at the Ambush skill. What it brings to the table is a way to prevent the 'unkillable stack' feature that many games suffer from where 1 super stack ravages an entire game/map. The Pro's and Con's are about what you'd expect, stops super stacks, gives weak units a small value even in late game, fairly easy to understand, can be overpowering in closed in/tight maps. It's not purely random (the roll itself is but the feature isn't) in that players have to invest gold/city production/movement/execution (as in attacking with it) for it to function.

Going back to the deserting concept. Your initial proposal was simply randomly rolling a percentage value causing the loss of a stack if you are too close to a city when an NAP ends. It was intended entirely as a way to fix NAP issues. Over the next few email discussions we've gone over the concept as you've attempted to flesh out the idea.

But the original idea was very similar to a proposal about ships where someone suggested 10% of the time when you end your turn in the water the boats should sink causing loss of all armies. Players were justifiably against such a concept even when it was changed to only apply to the weakest boat and only in deep water. The idea of negative reinforcement events is something players consistently hate in games.

So new features aren't bad as Warbarons is a hybrid of a bunch of prior Warlords games plus some other fantasy games. What is bad is purely random feature that players can't control beyond 'don't move there'. Lets say you finalized the concept as:
1) Hero stacks are immune. Maybe strength blessed units are too (or could even open up a new bless type).
2) The influence a city has is 1% per 10 gold income of the city + 1% per defender (so 0-32%) - 1% per unit in the stack being influenced (1-8). So a 40 gold income city with 4 defenders (4+4=8%) could not influence an 8 stack.
3) Influence range is 1 square per level of city walls (0-8) affecting only armies on land (ie can't influence anything in the water). If the influence range from one of your own cities can reach the stack it is immune.
4) Influence is rolled on a per unit basis at the start of a turn. It does not require an NAP. Losses are capped at a max of 2 units in a stack per turn.

Now you have an actual game feature that players have control of. Heroes are immune, stack size matters (both sides), city income + walls matter etc. So it now longer purely random like a lottery ticket (which it originally was).

Now would players want such a feature? I don't know but based on boat sinking feature being shot down I'd guess the answer is no. Personally I wouldn't want such a feature.

OK, last shot. What skill do you see/demonstrate/employ in getting to go first in a turn?

You mean in the overall game turn or first after an NAP ends? If you mean the former the answer is none. And I've already made a proposal about that where players 'bid' for turn order from their initial starting gold so the highest bid goes first so you can decide how much it's worth to go first in the order. I continue to hope it gets implemented in the future. As for the latter, you know when you sign the NAP who goes first when it ends so you can agree to it based on that though once again Chazars proposal solves most of that issue.

KGB

[LPhillips]

Holy forumitis, Batman!
This discussion is unreadable. TL;DR. Just... bleh.

The best solution is just to eliminate the NAP altogether. You can still create alliances by sending messages to the other players.

This is self-evident to me. Why work so hard on a complicated mechanic that is essentially detrimental? When in the history of mankind has there been a supernaturally enforced pact of non-aggression between two parties? This whole feature just gets in the way of real diplomacy and takes a whole level of strategy and intrigue out of the game. Half the fun of NAP's is that you must perform real diplomacy and enforce your pact with cunning, strength, and intrigue. All of the mechanics are there. You can turn a city over to enemy forces, you can send them gold. What purpose does this feature serve?

The only possible excuse for this (taking into account the severe cons of removing real diplomacy and a whole layer of gameplay and community interaction) is to somehow make newbs more comfortable. But does it even serve that purpose? And why is it involved in our ladder games? It really ruins the player-to-player interaction. Gone is all of the need for personal skills and complex player interaction within individual games and the community.

Let me illustrate: "I can trust KGB, he will keep his word. I can't trust Ezras, because I said some stupid crap to him and he'll probably take the chance to tear me up." Or "this guy is convincing, and he'll probably tear me a new ***hole if I don't keep my end up, but I'm going to take him down if he leaves himself vulnerable."
This whole layer of gameplay is gone. Doesn't this bother anyone else??

[Chazar]

Holy forumitis, Batman!
This discussion is unreadable. TL;DR. Just... bleh.

The best solution is just to eliminate the NAP altogether.

This is self-evident to me.

Well, to others it is not self-evident. The NAP is a nice option players can take or leave, for the all the reasons alredy posted above, in responses to your repeated criticism.

If a thread is "TL;DR" for you, then maybe posting into such a thread is not the greatest of all ideas, because by just repeating old stuff the thread does not get shorter.