HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Military | Battles | Major Spells

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
AuthorMessage
Lord William

avatar

Posts : 320
Ignore This Number : 322
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Military | Battles | Major Spells   Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:44 pm

Commander is an agent that allows the player direct control of their forces in battle. If an allied commander isn't present, you will direct the forces in a realistic manner, though abiding player-determined instructions in the event of no command structure present, or any pre-defined strategies given to them.

So charging being a commander ability is a little redundant - you need to have a commander on the field to order a charge anyway.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jasband
Admin
avatar

Posts : 395
Ignore This Number : 456
Join date : 2013-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Military | Battles | Major Spells   Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:33 pm

Don't worry Siroki, we have plenty of time and I don't expect this to be a simple process Razz.

William's point about the Commander is correct. I would say the charging process should work like this:

1. A group of Cavalry are ordered to charge at an enemy formation.
2. The Cavalry will charge straight ahead once they're given the order; this means that if you want them to charge into an enemy formation from behind, you'll have to move them in the preceding BR. In other words, no "circle behind those Spearmen and charge!"
3. Impact will inflict modified damage of the Cavalry. 1.5x for Hobelars, maybe 2x for Lancers (since they have much more weight). So, if Hobelars normally did (random value) 10 life points' DPS, they'd do 15 on the charge.
4. Once the bonus charge damage has been delivered, the Cavalry unit is locked in melee. If you want to pull them out, you may do so at this point.
5. If the group of horsemen is pulled out, they must retreat to a certain distance (arbitrary, depends on the environment and the judgment of the BM) and reform - both of these together can take 1 BR - before being able to charge again. Enemy units can try to pursue and prevent the Cavalry from reforming, but they likely won't be able to keep up; however, enemy Cavalry, especially Hobelars, could prove useful in hampering the reformation.
6. Spearmen or other anti-Calvary units that are in a strong formation can negate the charge bonus and even inflict heavy casualties on the horsemen if they charge straight ahead.

Now, Calvary charging other Calvary...

Head on: Charge damage bonus is negated?
From the flanks/rear: Same as charging a non-Calvary unit.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gw5sbox.forumotion.com
Lord William

avatar

Posts : 320
Ignore This Number : 322
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Military | Battles | Major Spells   Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:12 pm

Siroookiiiiiii... ^

Firestorm is a major spell that creates a circular area of destruction with the radius of 180 Sirokis for a duration of 10 Williams. During its period, the Firestorm area inflicts damage to all troops within it with the potential of 35,000. Charging a Firestorm takes 220 Williams, and it has a cast time of 5 Williams.

I think that's all?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jasband
Admin
avatar

Posts : 395
Ignore This Number : 456
Join date : 2013-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Military | Battles | Major Spells   Wed Aug 07, 2013 9:47 pm

William, you still think working with 5x troop resource cost is the way to go, or you want to lower the Recruitment Cap? Lime doesn't like it, though he hasn't really said why. I've re-thought the idea of increasing upkeep as way to keep troop numbers down and decided against it because it'd require rebalancing of income and construction costs, which I'd rather not do when I'm not even sure the current values are balanced.

I think lowering the Recruitment Cap is better; it preserves the familiar resource costs we're used to in GW4 while giving value to Recruitment Modifiers, which are almost completely ignored in GW4 (though I'll be recruiting 2,700 troops in Varrock once I get a T2 Blast Furnace built). I'm not sure if your aim is to lower the overall scale of armies or provide more "resource sinks". If the case is the latter, we can easily lower the collection cap or increase research/construction resource costs.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gw5sbox.forumotion.com
Limes

avatar

Posts : 301
Ignore This Number : 311
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Military | Battles | Major Spells   Wed Aug 07, 2013 11:53 pm

I mean... the fact that we're raising the cost of troops just feels... odd. I don't like it, and I wish I could give a better reason than that. It seems alien.

If we were to do something, then I'd say that we'd should lower the collection cap, but in-turn, lower the cost of buildings...

I dunno. It just feels wrong. You can throw all the facts you want at me for this, or call me completely ridiculous like I probably am, but it'll probably just keep irking me.

Also, this in on an unrelated topic, but we need to COMPLETELY nail down the rules of the Misinformation Check. It needs to be fixed, and tried/tested, because in GW4 it's causing a lot of issues, as Unguis pointed out. Also, it's been the root of many arguments. By now, the rules have become so convoluted and disagreed upon that it's too twisted to implement a new version in GW4, but we need to make sure that a good version hits the game in GW5. It needs to have clear and simple rules, The Gamemaster to be in charge of all misinformation-checking, and it's own separate post so that everyone can read it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jasband
Admin
avatar

Posts : 395
Ignore This Number : 456
Join date : 2013-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Military | Battles | Major Spells   Thu Aug 08, 2013 12:40 am

The first step to fixing MC is fixing stealth/misdirection rules. The two go hand-in-hand. I think we've already made a lot of progress regarding the latter, so MC will be better.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gw5sbox.forumotion.com
Lord William

avatar

Posts : 320
Ignore This Number : 322
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Military | Battles | Major Spells   Thu Aug 08, 2013 6:07 am

I'm pretty sure I've made it very clear what can and cannot be lied about.

Also, the point of increasing resource costs, like I've said numerous times now, is making less troops feel like more. This is all because of agents, you see. Let's say that your enemy is sending a caravan whose path goes near the border of their territory. This caravan is LOADED with resources. You can send 100 troops to raid the caravan and get all the resources for yourself. Now, with the old troop costs, 100 troops is NOTHING. We all know that 100 troops can't achieve shit, mostly because you guys have armies in the numbers of tens of thousands.

There just isn't enough risk involved with sending 100 troops with the old numbers. You have the chance of losing 1,000 resource, so what? The enemy has a chance of potentially losing tens upon tens of thousands, and the resource advantage between the two of you will shift by twice that.

Of course, the same applies to things like abducting agents and such.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Limes

avatar

Posts : 301
Ignore This Number : 311
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Military | Battles | Major Spells   Thu Aug 08, 2013 9:26 am

Lord William wrote:
I'm pretty sure I've made it very clear what can and cannot be lied about.

Also, the point of increasing resource costs, like I've said numerous times now, is making less troops feel like more. This is all because of agents, you see. Let's say that your enemy is sending a caravan whose path goes near the border of their territory. This caravan is LOADED with resources. You can send 100 troops to raid the caravan and get all the resources for yourself. Now, with the old troop costs, 100 troops is NOTHING. We all know that 100 troops can't achieve shit, mostly because you guys have armies in the numbers of tens of thousands.

There just isn't enough risk involved with sending 100 troops with the old numbers. You have the chance of losing 1,000 resource, so what? The enemy has a chance of potentially losing tens upon tens of thousands, and the resource advantage between the two of you will shift by twice that.

Of course, the same applies to things like abducting agents and such.

In the beginning, 100 troops is very important. It's hard to get endgame armies at the start of the game. And, we understand that you want to make less into more, but there has to be a better way to do it.

Also, we might be clear about the MC, but let's be redundant and go with them again. It doesn't hurt.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jasband
Admin
avatar

Posts : 395
Ignore This Number : 456
Join date : 2013-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Military | Battles | Major Spells   Thu Aug 08, 2013 10:08 am

Limes wrote:
In the beginning, 100 troops is very important. It's hard to get endgame armies at the start of the game. And, we understand that you want to make less into more, but there has to be a better way to do it.

Also, we might be clear about the MC, but let's be redundant and go with them again. It doesn't hurt.
Well, William's got a point; it doesn't matter what stage of the game it is, you know. It's unlikely that we'll be moving more than a couple thousand units of a resource in the beginning, because most people will be using what they gather for research and construction, but sending 100 troops - risking only 1k resources - is a bit disproportionate when the Caravan contains 3, 4, 5, 10x that. I don't know if the 20k cap is still needed when ship/siege costs have been uber-nerfed and construction costs are also lower. Would you prefer troop costs be normal, but the collection cap be 10k?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gw5sbox.forumotion.com
Limes

avatar

Posts : 301
Ignore This Number : 311
Join date : 2013-04-29

PostSubject: Re: Military | Battles | Major Spells   Thu Aug 08, 2013 10:09 am

I suppose. We'll have to test, though.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jasband
Admin
avatar

Posts : 395
Ignore This Number : 456
Join date : 2013-04-28

PostSubject: Re: Military | Battles | Major Spells   Thu Aug 08, 2013 10:14 am

Indeed. I see large empires getting resource modifiers of at least 3x, in some extreme cases 7x (Toa's Wood). Add in the fact that people will try to come up with more GOL-3 projects, and the 20k cap really seems too high. The main chokepoint for what you want to do won't be resources, it'll be Gold, I know... but having hundreds of thousands of units of resources around without the Gold to use them is silly anyways.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gw5sbox.forumotion.com
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Military | Battles | Major Spells   

Back to top Go down
 
Military | Battles | Major Spells
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 5 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 :: Drafts-
Jump to: