Some potentially radical ideas on Capitals & purchases.

[FatsXL]

First a disclaimer, I'm going to quote a bunch of numbers but refining is welcome if appropriate.

1. Capital cities. One thing I miss from Warlords DLR is the continuation of capital cities when the old had been conquered. In that game capitals were purely cosmetic, in this I'd like to see some benefits attached and the idea of having a capital made more relevant.

Possible benefits of a Capital city:
-o 50 Bonus Gold per turn
-o Maximum walls / view radius
-o -1 production time
-o All tiles within capital view radius are like roads (move cost 1)

This would probably require some maps to be redesigned as most capitals have permanently higher gold production, but I think it would be better for the game. Especially because it helps players with fewer armies and cities than the competition.

-Players could change their capital city once every 10 turns at a cost of 250 gold & an additional 1/4 of the cost to upgrade the cities walls from current to maximum, provided they have had ownership of the city for at least 3 turns. When a capital is conquered, the player may freely choose their next capital at no cost provided they have had ownership of the city for at least 3 turns. If no city meets this requirement it will be randomly chosen for them.

-Conquering an enemy capital would grant bonus gold and/or all temple blessings to the conquering stack. This is to maintain the high risk / high reward aspect of taking a capital.

2. I don't like the random nature of hero/ally offers and item rewards from ruins. There is already enough randomness in the game via battle calculations, the game needs a little more consistency. All of the following should be purchasable at any time during a players turn:

A)Items

Ruins would no longer reward items. Instead, players could purchase them via selecting the Hero and the items would spawn at their feet. Each item would have it's own associated cost (ie. similar to buying production for units in cities) and there would be new level restrictions on purchasing items for each of the three tiers to prevent newly created Heroes from wrecking older, leveled ones (there would be no restriction on equipping them, only buying).

Eg.
Tier 1 ('Bronze') -- requires level 2 Hero
Tier 2 ('Silver') -- requires level 3 Hero
Tier 3 ('Gold') -- requires level 5 Hero

B)Heroes
Heroes should have a consistent cost and only scale in cost based upon the number of Heroes a player currently has. Heroes could be spawned at any city provided the player has owned it for at least 3 turns, however there would be additional cost based upon the distance the city is from the capital up to a maximum of 200 extra gold. Heroes spawned in the capital would have no extra cost.

Eg.
1st Hero = 500 gold
2nd = 575
3rd = 675
4th = 800
5th = 1000
6th & beyond = 1250 ea.

C) Mercenaries & Allies

Each turn after 10, a player accrues 1 "Mercenary Point" per turn up to a maximum 16. The cost of purchasing mercenaries is 1 point for every turn required to produce the unit and 1/2 their city production in gold. ie. Red Dragons would cost 5 mercenary points and 1200 gold while Demons would cost 3 points and 725 gold. Mercenaries would always spawn at a players current capital city.

Allies are mercenaries that may only be purchased with Heroes. Allies would spawn with a Hero at the chosen city. All costs would be the same as mercenaries (1 point per unit turn and 1/2 production price).

3. Walls. Wall upgrades should be more simplified, I don't understand why there are 9 different ranks. Further they are a little too expensive. I'd prefer something like this:

level 1 (default, no cost) -- 2 view radius
level 2 (150 gold) -- 3 view radius +5 wall
level 3 (300 gold) -- 5 view radius +10 wall
level 4 (550 gold) -- 7 view radius +15 wall

total cost (level 1 to level 4) -- 1000 gold

ok that's all for now.

[Moonknight]

Randomness is part of the fun...especially for Ruins and Hero Offers.

I do think the current Hero w/allies system needs reworking though. I rarely get any ally offers unless i have 2000+ gold.

There has been discussion about being able to sell items, i think we should be able to buy items at some sort of shop on the map as well.

At one point, there was going to be a temple of some sort to where you could purchase Mercenaries as well (I think some sort of "Fire Camp" would be a good visual).

[KGB]

I do think the current Hero w/allies system needs reworking though. I rarely get any ally offers unless i have 2000+ gold.

Strange. I get ally offers all the time (roughly 1 out of every 2 offers in that range) when I have 1300-2000 gold. Those allies are virtually always Wizards and Elementals with the occasional Medusa. Maybe you just turn down such ally offers waiting for better ones so you don't remember getting that many ally offers.

The game is setup now to only give out better allies with more gold. That is as it should be since a Dragon ally costs a lot more than a Wizard ally and therefore has a higher gold threshold before such an ally is offered.

There has been discussion about being able to sell items, i think we should be able to buy items at some sort of shop on the map as well.

I disagree with that idea. It just makes one more building cluttering up the map. Then map makers have to evenly distribute such buildings etc. If you are going to go with a defined place to buy items (as opposed to random merchant offers like DLR) then I'd suggest the place be your capitol city only. Everyone has one and it makes the capitol more important to protect and if you capture someone elses capitol you'll have another place to buy items (in team games you could buy in your team mates capitol). The other advantage is that you can then make purchasing items a 'game' option selectable by the player creating the game rather than being subject to whatever building someone placed on the map.

At one point, there was going to be a temple of some sort to where you could purchase Mercenaries as well (I think some sort of "Fire Camp" would be a good visual).

I think this one is still planned. It suffers from the same disadvantages that item buildings do with the added issue of how to prevent players from endlessly visiting the building every turn and buying mercs if they are rich. I'm glad this one hasn't made it in yet because I think the concept is going to be very very hard to balance and it takes away from getting allies in ruins. Again I'd suggest going with the capitol city only route for obtaining mercs.

KGB

[LPhillips]

The post deserves an in-depth discussion, and I have no time. But this different view of where the game could go is refreshing. What benefits do capitol cities have now? Do you get 50% of the opponent's treasury for capturing as you did in some versions of Warlords?

[FatsXL]

As far as I can tell there are no benefits to conquering or owning a capital city beyond whatever gold income, army production and wall level has been set by the map creator. Implementing capitals in the way I suggested would add another strategic element to the game along with a little more consistency.

If you are going to go with a defined place to buy items (as opposed to random merchant offers like DLR) then I'd suggest the place be your capitol city only. Everyone has one and it makes the capitol more important to protect and if you capture someone elses capitol you'll have another place to buy items (in team games you could buy in your team mates capitol). The other advantage is that you can then make purchasing items a 'game' option selectable by the player creating the game rather than being subject to whatever building someone placed on the map.

This is precisely along the lines of what I suggested in the first post. Although I do not like the idea of capitals being the hub to purchase things (Mercs, items, etc) if they are fixed and cannot be "relocated" when the old is conquered or in danger, as that would give mega nations a huge advantage.

It suffers from the same disadvantages that item buildings do with the added issue of how to prevent players from endlessly visiting the building every turn and buying mercs if they are rich. I'm glad this one hasn't made it in yet because I think the concept is going to be very very hard to balance and it takes away from getting allies in ruins. Again I'd suggest going with the capitol city only route for obtaining mercs.

I covered this as well, if each player had a set number of "merc points" as a secondary form of currency (in addition to gold) there would be a set limit on the quantity and quality of units that could be bought per turn, as opposed to being purely limited by the cost in gold.

[KGB]

FatsXL,

As far as I can tell there are no benefits to conquering or owning a capital city beyond whatever gold income, army production and wall level has been set by the map creator.

You are right, there is no addition benefit other than the high gold income and the high level walls.

This is precisely along the lines of what I suggested in the first post. Although I do not like the idea of capitals being the hub to purchase things (Mercs, items, etc) if they are fixed and cannot be "relocated" when the old is conquered or in danger, as that would give mega nations a huge advantage.

I am not a fan of letting players re-locate every X turns. They would just naturally move their capitol to the front lines in a well defended city so they could get access to all it's benefits faster (which benefits mega nations who otherwise are far from their capitol). Instead I'd prefer that if you lose your capitol that you can create another one if you desire. That can either be by paying some gold or by waiting X number of turns since yours was captured.

I'm also on board with the -1 production time suggestion. Having all tiles within the view radius be like roads would be a bit too much and would make it hard on maps with water/mountains/lava near capitols because of how unfair that would be to those players not able to use that terrain. The +50 gold is no different than having high initial income on the capitol. I don't really care one way or another about increasing the walls from L7 to L8.

I covered this as well, if each player had a set number of "merc points" as a secondary form of currency (in addition to gold) there would be a set limit on the quantity and quality of units that could be bought per turn, as opposed to being purely limited by the cost in gold.

Allies should never be purchased. They should only come from ruins or with a hero as part of the offer.

As far as Mercenary Points go I find the concept strange. Why should everyone get exactly 1 point a turn? Real mercenaries would tend to gravitate toward the richest player who can afford to pay them the most / best. Or toward a great and famous hero they wanted to follow in battle to win riches. To me the Merc offers should be related to something the player DOES (acquiring gold, heroes could have a fame skill to spend points on, completing quests etc) rather than something everyone just GETS. Then it's a game skill.

KGB

[FatsXL]

the 1 point a turn figure was just a number - it could be 1 or 999 - the number isn't relevant so much as the effect it is trying to produce, which is to limit the number of mercenaries one can purchase as a function of time rather than a function of income. If you need some sort of immersive realism logic to justify that (I don't get this philosophy, it's a game meant to be fair and enjoyable first and foremost, not fit some role-playing rule set), well then think of it like this, there are a limited number of mercenaries out there. And as you said it would be game breaking if there were some reliable way to purchase mercenaries (like a building or a game option) if the only restriction were price.

As for allies, the suggestion was that they only be purchasable with Heroes. It would simply be at the players discretion whether to add them, for a premium of course.

[KGB]

FatsXL,

As for allies, the suggestion was that they only be purchasable with Heroes. It would simply be at the players discretion whether to add them, for a premium of course.

You realize this game already has this right?. When a hero comes with allies you have the option to not take the allies in which case you don't pay for them.

the number isn't relevant so much as the effect it is trying to produce, which is to limit the number of mercenaries one can purchase as a function of time rather than a function of income. It's a game meant to be fair and enjoyable first and foremost, not fit some role-playing rule set.

That's exactly what I object to. You want to hand out mercs in a perfectly fair manner that has nothing to do with game skill. It's no different than handing out $200 every time you pass Go in Monopoly. That's fine in a causal family game like Monopoly but has no place in a strategy game that's supposed to be based on skill. I can't think of any strategy games that award things in a 'fair' manner after the initial game start. Everything is earned based on game play. Even the most basic of strategy games like Risk follow this ideology where the armies you earn are based on land / continents you control.

That's why I think players must earn their mercs as opposed to go to a building to get them or get handed them every X turns (which by the way benefits players going first in the turn order since they accumulate points first to get the mercs allowing them to potentially buy a game changing merc with bonus's). They don't have to be purely a function of gold. My suggestion is they get acquired in 3 ways:
1) Gold
2) Hero Fame
3) Quests

All 3 things players can control and skillfully manage. Which is the whole point of a strategy game.

KGB

[LPhillips]

I have to agree with KGB thus far.
1) Players ought to be rewarded for capturing enemy capitol cities. Thus the comment "xxx in Capitols benefits mega-nations" seems like a positive connotation, not a negative one. The only real concern is an extra worry in map balance: games with less than the maximum number of players need to be even more carefully arranged in terms of spawn etc. in order to prevent neutral capitols from being unfairly accessible from start. If someone succeeds, if they capture enemy territory, then they deserve the rewards. We don't need to try to help the underdog. If you are the underdog then it is your own fault and you deserve to lose. Only bad map design would prevent this absolute rule from being true.

Does anyone really want the balance of power to shift to favoring the loser in order to drag out games or prevent effective play and strategy from being ultimately successful? Your units don't get 15% stronger when your command centers are destroyed in Starcraft 2, do they? Do you get extra time in speed chess when you have less pieces? Of course not.

2) Pretty much apply concept in 1) to Mercenaries in general. Make them a bit scarce, but don't try to use them as a way to pull up underdog players. They are desirable as a way to convert gold into military strength in a less random way, somewhat circumventing production limitations. That is the goal of implementing mercenaries. In other words, the goal is to allow players who have acquired large sums of money to employ it effectively, rewarding their effort. Right now we sit on our hands and beg for the RNG to give us something useful. Mercs give the option to buy something definitely useful right now, or to wait on the RNG for that perfect hero offer. Options are good.

3) The only thing needed to balance mercs is gold and availability over time. Gold is required to get them. Availability can be controlled by:
a) Buildings, where they can be purchased if the building is controlled (it's just another city, folks). Obviously there must be limits on the amount available at any time.
b) Capitol cities, which amounts to the same thing minus giving mapmakers better control. We can always place the merc hut next to the capitol...
c) The number and types available. Again, I think this is best controlled by a mapmaker setting. I can set a unit, turn range, and number available in the merc hut. Up to 10 settings. This means I can individually set 1 Orc turns 1-30, 1 Orc turns 5-infinity, 2 Orcs turns 10-infinity, 0.5 Dragons turns 15-infinity. That's only 4 out of 10 settings, but it gives complex behavior.
This means on turns 1-4 you could buy 1 Orc, on turns 5-9 you could buy 2 Orcs, on turns 10-14 you could buy 3 Orcs, on turns 15-30 you could buy 3 Orcs and 1 Dragon every other turn. After 30, 2 Orcs and 1 dragon every other turn. It's just a basic demonstration of the utility.

Just give it some thought. We shouldn't eliminate Merc buildings simply because we expect little out of our mapmakers. We should instead install a system as demonstrated that will make mercenary employment everything we could hope for with absolutely none of the caveats that have been touted.

[KGB]

LPhillips,

My problem with buildings is:
1) You are relying on map makers to place them in a reasonable manner. On 8 player maps that means 8 such buildings or else everyone will be whining about the unfairness of it all. Plus a mechanism to get them from the buildings (can any unit do it or does one need to dedicate a hero to visit).
2) Now Mercs are not a game option, they are a map option so there is no way to play a map and have Mercs turned off (unless you want useless buildings) or play a map and use Mercs if someone didn't place a Merc building.
3) There is no other way to award Mercs for things like completing quests or based on hero fame (something heroes could spend individual skill points on in addition to Learning/Undead Lore etc). For example I can picture Paladin heroes attracting / getting certain kinds of Mercs (Crusaders, Pegasi etc) while a DK would attract / get a different kind (Orcs, Minotaurs, Demons etc) and a Ranger yet another group (Elves, Eagles, Unicorns etc) and Horse Lords another (both Cavalries, Elephants etc) and Assassins the obvious (Orcs, Wolfriders, Medusa) and so on.
4) Even with 10 settings the Mercs are limited to what's set. That can be both good / bad depending on how the map maker sets things and if they come back and update (which many don't do) based on feedback. To me these 10 settings aren't much different than the Trigger concept where you can set Triggers to award units on certain turns. That effectively functions as a Merc hut so why need the Merc hut concept.

KGB