The role of Players

Actually in my system there are lords who are always the same person, but not regular troops.

Ok now my detailed post, beware. I'm taking the CoR (reverans) as an example.

Let's say we have access to:
Reveran Guardsman (Tier-1 militia)
Reveran Man-at-arms (Tier-2 infantry)
Reveran Crossbowman (Tier-2 archer)
Reveran Sergeant (Tier-3 officer)

Since we have seen the advantage of having production capacity instead of actual 'units' of wood/iron/food etc. you can't have more troops than you produce food. Every troop reduces the surplus of food production. This will be the limit for the number of troops.

The troops will be divided in three categories, being AI, Players and Officers (or nobles).

AI is cheaper (or maybe the same price, as there is a limit on player troops (32 is server limit), but the bot limit is higher, also AI is vastly improved.) and will have a different tag name in the party. They need to be under the command of a player troop (so in the same army/party).

Players can be more expensive and they count as regular player troops. Any normal clan member chosen by the clan leader can play as them. They can't lead their own parties/armies.

Officers are the named troops of the kingdom, being clan officers/high ranking members. They will be represented with their own name on the campaign map and can only play their own character.
They will lead armies/parties.


For example we get this Reveran party, that's available when we have a large town or two small villages:
Lord MahuD
Reveran Sergeant (Foamy)
Reveran Man-at-arms AI (2)
Reveran Man-at-arms player (4)
Reveran Crossbowman AI (5)
Reveran Crossbowman player (3)
Reveran Militia AI (4)
Reveran Militia player (5)

This would be quite a large and expensive army and it would need 14 clanmembers for the ingame M&B battle, for example:
Mahud
Foamy
Inox
Fredelios
Hethwill
Kazzan
Mephisto
Melons
Captain Lust
Bear
Forgin
Mabons
Kleid
Overlord

Mahud and Foamy would need to play, as they're the lords, and if they don't show up, the Reverans would fight with two men less that day. But if for example Melons and Forgin don't show up, they could be replaced by two other members, for example Tansvanio and Crazy Archer.
The number of Men-at-arms used by players on in the battle would have to equal the number of Men-at-arms on the campaign map, being 4.

When a regular troop dies, player or not, they die and will be removed from the campaign list as well. No matter if you win or lose, the troops get get knocked unconscious or slashed by a sword simply die. Therefor you need to play careful and try to save your best troops.
However when a Lord or officer falls in battle, they either die (only for officers, not for lords) or get captured (both lords and officers can get captured) and can be ransomed.

AI's can't take place of player troops.

Also I don't see how this would harm diplomacy in any way. You still have to be careful with your
troops and forge alliances. If you fight everyone, your economy won't keep up.
Also this allows for more large scaled battles, while after one 32v32 in your system, one large clan has zero troops at the end of the battle and can't do anything to defend himself.
My system promotes large battles between clans, rather than being careful all the time so that only small skirmishes happen.

It harms diplomacy and co-operation because your trying to push a system where even the smallest clans are able to stand up to the largest ones. Clans will not be forced to work together to survive against clans with superior power. As I explained.
---
After a battle where a clan lost all their troops they will have lost all their troops and wont be able to fight?!?!?!?!?!??!!?

OMG what a travesty

Also not actually true. Just because each player unit is tied to a real unit does not mean that you will not have significant numbers of AI soldiers led by a single human general and his officer or whatever.
---

Anyway as foamy said they are pretty similar systems. I am not going to dispute that because they are practicly the same except Arch3rs is allowing you to magicly transfer your players all over the map so long as you have "player troops" there and mine is more realistic. That might be a nice idea there though foamy. The whole assigning multiple players to one in game character thing would solve Arch3r's issues with the system. However doing so would limit the amount of players you can have in game even further but then that is the price of extra reliability I guess.

Would suck for the players though who have to share a single character but then if they are not rleiable enough to be dpeended on that serves them right.

---
Offtopic, not sure why it was relevant here but
...did we really see the advantage of production capacity? I see its merits but it also has several large problems.

1) No stockpiling, so I know the enemy is on their way and there is going to be a long siege. We have expanded a lot recently and in order to keep eveyrone fed we had to build half our farms outside the walls. Now with "production capacity" instead of stockpiling the fact that we were way way overproducing food means nothing as we have no stockpile so when the enemy rolls in were fucked despite the fact that we ought have a shitload of food in storage.

2) Trading difficulties. Now you could trade away your "production capacity" but it just is not the same.

It is not hard to have both production capacity and units you know. Then you can go over your capacity for short amount of time if you have the resources spare.

Like the game hinterland. That has stockpiles and production capacities. It tells you how much you make per turn but also lets you stockpile.

Plazek wrote:It harms diplomacy and co-operation because your trying to push a system where
Anyway as foamy said they are pretty similar systems. I am not going to dispute that because they are practicly the same except Arch3rs is allowing you to magicly transfer your players all over the map so long as you have "player troops" there and mine is more realistic. That might be a nice idea there though foamy. The whole assigning multiple players to one in game character thing would solve Arch3r's issues with the system. However doing so would limit the amount of players you can have in game even further but then that is the price of extra reliability I guess.

Wait what, this makes NO sense. You are suddenly all for the 'magical transferring' of troops? As that's what happens when you assign multiple players to one in game character too. That character magically becomes another person, but in this case its NOT magicly transfer as you call it? Makes sense, not.

Plazek wrote:
Also not actually true. Just because each player unit is tied to a real unit does not mean that you will not have significant numbers of AI soldiers led by a single human general and his officer or whatever.

Not if the clan has 5 players and they were all merged to fight against a larger clan. If that clans army loses there they have no player troops left.

Also it does not harm diplomacy at all as clans will still be forced to work together, how you came to the conclusion that smaller clans are just as strong as larger clans all of the sudden (while that's not true at all, larger clans still have an advantage, all be it not as large as in your system) is a mystery to me.

No it isn't Arch3r it just means that 2 people share one in game character. There is no magical transfer they are just both somehow in one body.

It is not the same as mine or the same as yours, you know that thing called a compromise.
----

Yes Arch3r if a faction has lost all their soldiers they have lost all their soldiers. This is a problem why? It certainly makes more sense than a faction being able to send out all their soldiers, lose them, and then still be able to fight!

I did not say they would be just as strong I said they are stronger than they should be relative to the real strength. This is why it undermines diplomacy as eveyrone will have less of a need to co-operate. Small clans will be able to work on a level they ought not be able to.

Maybe the lack of player units problem could be solved by having people escape like lords do in SP?either do it by chance or have them fight a small battle with a few bots against an enemy player with a few bots.

So, what are we heading to?

Simple "Player units"?

A number of named "Lord" units that grant priviledges (better income, for example, in the location they are staying) but must be played by the same player all the times + "normal" player units?

Nothing at all?

Plazek wrote:
Yes Arch3r if a faction has lost all their soldiers they have lost all their soldiers. This is a problem why? It certainly makes more sense than a faction being able to send out all their soldiers, lose them, and then still be able to fight!

You entirely misunderstood it again and twisted my words. I meant that after a battle of 32 players (which I would like to happen, but won't with your suggestion) one clan ends up with no soldiers. Just ONE battle with 32 players.

Yes, if you have only 32 players and you lose them then you should have lost them.

I am not misunderstanding or twisting anything. I am just saying it is not a problem in my opinion and you are saying it is. This does not mean I do not understand or I am twisting your words.

Oh and 32 player a side battles could easily happen. For example ANY siege. Provided the defender has 32 soldiers they sure as hell will be there. If whoever is attacking wants to win they will make sure they at least have equal forces.

Baseless comment.

What we need here is to take a decision. Experimenting and betatesting will follow, with the due modifications.

Here are the proposals, as i understood them:

1) Arch3r:
Only one named unit (the King), possibility to recruit Human Units that could be played by every clan member\mercenary.

2) Plazek:
A King and some -limited in number- named units (from now on "lord"), that can possibly die\be captured and can be played only by determined clan members.

Personally, for now i'm with Plazek. The only thing i'm asking is for this lords to be extremely limited in numbers (+1 every 10 official clan members, or more), and for them to give some economical\military bonuses (i'm thinking of RTW family members as city governors).

Nikephoros wrote:What we need here is to take a decision. Experimenting and betatesting will follow, with the due modifications.

Here are the proposals, as i understood them:

1) Arch3r:
Only one named unit (the King), possibility to recruit Human Units that could be played by every clan member\mercenary.

2) Plazek:
A King and some -limited in number- named units (from now on "lord"), that can possibly die\be captured and can be played only by determined clan members.

Personally, for now i'm with Plazek. The only thing i'm asking is for this lords to be extremely limited in numbers (+1 every 10 official clan members, or more), and for them to give some economical\military bonuses (i'm thinking of RTW family members as city governors).

You got this wrong, "A King and some -limited in number- named units (from now on "lord"), that can possibly die\be captured and can be played only by determined clan members." is MY suggestion, he suggests that ALL players are named. Thus you can have only 5 players on the map if you only have 5 people in the clan, which is not enough.

Plazek wrote:Yes, if you have only 32 players and you lose them then you should have lost them.

I am not misunderstanding or twisting anything. I am just saying it is not a problem in my opinion and you are saying it is. This does not mean I do not understand or I am twisting your words.

Oh and 32 player a side battles could easily happen. For example ANY siege. Provided the defender has 32 soldiers they sure as hell will be there. If whoever is attacking wants to win they will make sure they at least have equal forces.

Baseless comment.

You certainly DID twist my words in this sentence, or just phrased it real bad,
"It certainly makes more sense than a faction being able to send out all their soldiers, lose them, and then still be able to fight!"
In my suggestion, even when a clan sends 32 player troops, they can still have soldiers left, so they don't send ALL their soldiers, like you try to make us believe. Your suggestion favors large clans (such as the 22nd with it's mass recruiting policy) way too much. Small clans, even though they should need to ally up in order to make a stand, would still get totally annihilated even WITH alliances.

Oh and if that siege does happen than the losing team will have lost all it's players, meaning they're defenseless. Probably the defender team wins because of the defending advantage, meaning attacks will never happen because the risk is too large. Sucks.

I feel you should only be able to have 1 lord per settlement as you would run your first settlement as king and have a lord to follow as your get villages and towns your faction would advance and named players would become lords of the fifes.

Replace "soldiers" with clan members and it makes sense. I was thinking with those terms as interchangeable as IMO that is how it should be!

Really though I still do not understand why you think being defenceless after losing all your soldiers is a problem this seems like a basic thing to me. Losing all soldiers = defenceless.

However here is the real distinction between me and Arch3rs ideas:

Plazek:

Each soldier on the map (excluding AI which I do not even know if I want to see in the game) is a clan member and only that clan member can play that player. One player is one soldier and you are limited to having as many soldiers as you have clan members.

However central to this vision is that nations will ultimately be made up of more than one clan. For example 22nd + CoR may ally at first but then later form a nation and fight under a single banner. So it does not matter that an individual clan may have less players as they will all be part of a much larger coalition. Small clans however will not be able to "go it alone"

You would not have to worry about so much of the economic stuff like troops support or paying for soldiers (except to replace losses) and it would have been quick and simple to implement. Real clan strength will play a large role but that does not mean any single clan can win should he become an evil bastard warmonger and everyone else decides to make a massive coalition and destroy him.

Arch3r:

Each player unit is able to filled by any clan member eho is available for that match, you can play in multiple battles as one clan member as you are never tied to a specific unit unless you are a noble or somehting. You can have as many fighters as you can afford.

Central to this vision is the idea that any clan can form a nation of their own, as it will not matter how large they are because they can just pump out more AI and "player units" as far as their economy lets them.

For an idea like this it will take a long time to implement will need large amount of work on the economic system to be effective and the game will not be about real clan strength at all but the numbers behind the game.

---------------------

However it seems to me that we have gone so far away from the initial premise of trying to make a simple early beta so we can test out a wide variety of ideas and it feels to me more like Arch3r is going into such crazy levels of depth and shuttling us down a pre-set route that we will get stuck in a massive undertaking that will never finish nor will we test alternate ideas as so much work will have been done for this one direction already! Let alone the fact that I spend large amount of times trying to convey my ideas and it turns out to all be for nothing (I feel) not even properly evaluated.

I also feel that at least half of Arch3r's dislike for my conception for this game comes from his suspicion that I suggest it only because I am head of the 22nd one of the largest and most skilled clans in Warband and will have an advantage in such a system. This is not true, I am supporting my idea because I can see it s clearly and it feels so epic. I would be perfectly happy if in this game every clan allied and destroyed us utterly dropping us to the level of lowly bandits and mercenaries. Because it would be awesome!


PS

There is no mass recruitment policy Arch3r we turn away far far more people than we recruit. It is just that everyone wants a piece of us. I do not appreciate such comments and their passive agressive implication that we are somehow an inferior clan.

Let's keep this thread free of rivalries and malice, for the sake of a game NOT ONLY 22nd and CoR want to see developed

Now, back on track.

Personally, i support the idea having a few (limited) named "Lords", granting some bonus to the settlement they garrison, and the (also limited to the number of clan members) possibility of "anonimous" player units.

Think about it: a good STRATEGY game needs to have a balance on both the Big Scale and the Tactical parts. You should have both the human resource and the material possibilities to field armies. If you don't have an economic backbone capable of sustaining your army, you shouldn't be able to campaign for long, or with a huge army.

Of course, game balancemente is all a matter of cost balancement. "Upgrading" a unit to a Lord should cost something, but the cost will not overrun the benefit. Similarly, recruiting a human unit will cost more than a AI soldier.

What do you think?

That is not necessarily out of place on a system such as mine.
You could have to purchase your clan members into the game before they are in it. Maybe not all clan members would be able to be afforded. Then you would maybe have to support them with in game currency.

Not that it would be necessary at all! You see not everything has to be simulated by the game. We could have a perfectly good game where the whole economy of troops is settled by "out of game mechanics" such as real life recruiting. Need some more soldiers for battle of calradia? Then go to the Taleworlds mercenary forum and troll for some recruits! Start up a TBFC division in your clan where you recruit players for the game, who will otherwise not be standard clan members. I am sure if this game takes off a lot of people not necessarily affiliated with clans will want to play.

Of course this would be less "gamey" less of a classical strategy game in ways but it would have advantages too. It would feel more real for one, and actually be more fun IMO than clicking a "buy more troops" button. Not to mention it requires absolutely no programming or in game mechanic to implement except adding your new soldiers to a list and placing them on the map.

Then when you die they can simply respawn after X time depending on how many "supply centres" or whatever you have that allow X%/# of troop resupply per turn.

As for balance it is balanced if everyone is subject to the same rules. Balance =/= forcing a "realistic" economy on top of everything.

-----

Not that I expect the above idea to be imlemented in the slightest, it is just an example of how you could have army recruitment without complex in game economy. It is still strategy it is just that the resources are real not in game numbers. That resource being time and effort spent recruiting real people. I know it sounds a bit outlandish for a "strategy" game but is it that weird really?

You could still have AI troops work in a similar way without the need for purchasing. They would simply spawn in on your fiefs like they do in native for free, like they are in native. However they would be a defence force only, to give defenders an edge. In a way "riding around" the TW forums looking for recruits is a lot more like native than buying soldiers.

-----
As I said me and Arch3r's conception of what will make this game awesome is very different


PS

No malice, if I am wrong in my suspicions I apolagise but I figured it is better to say than have them eat away at me.

Plazek wrote:

Plazek:

(excluding AI which I do not even know if I want to see in the game)

That is what worries me most, as my intention of the Battle for Calradia was too have large battles, with a lot of bots and players as commanders, bots WILL play a large role as that's the whole point of tBfC...

This not just a league with a campaign map, this is more strategic and economic than skill on the battlefield. I totally disagree that AI should play a small role and it's not going to happen.

Yea but you see I say that I am unsure if I want to see it but I am then able to see your point of view and concede it might add at least something. Which is why I am still around, I know bots are going to play a role and IMO it is my job to try and limit that role for the good of the game. BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I THINK THE GAME NEEDS. You have a diffeent conception, sometimes I think you forget we are both working towards the same thing, even if we do have very different ideas of what it ought be.

Whereas I propose an idea such as how every player ought be on the map in a real way and you just say NONONO.

This then leads to frustration for me as debate is a 2 way street.

For example "just a league with a campaign map, this is more strategic and economic".
Implying my suggestion is nothing but battles, that there is no strategy and no economy. Which more than anything suggests you do not understand my idea or are just making shit up to argue against it.

When really they are just different types of strategy and a different take on economy.

I am sure the game will be great whichever way it goes but still you see I have to push what I thnk is best. As you do with yours.

Not sure if the system for this is already worked out or not, but if I may suggest something that may appease both.

Plazek wants a dedicated troop for each human player. The problem here is smaller clans may be at a disadvantage having a smaller pool of human players to draw from.

Arch3r wants placeholder troops that any human can play. Problem with this is it kind of defeats the purpose of having a larger clan.

A possible way of getting around this is to make a dedicated troop for each clan member. Then allow that clan member's troop to be able to participate in any battle with a certain number of hexes away. This would allow the smaller clans with less land to effectively defend a lot more of their land.
The distance that a clan member could travel could be dependent on a skill (if they are to be implemented), roads, terrain type, if they access to a horse, etc.

That might be a nice idea irrelevant of which system we use.

Perhaps a bonus of roads and using a "fortify" ability. Of course if you move you would lose any fortify bonus you would have had you not moved and the roads would have to be clear.

Would add tactical options

I'm just going to point out that not every clan has tons of members, all of which are active.

My clan will probably never have more than a handful of people in a single battle, if that means I'm going to be severely gimped or simply not able to play the campaign, I'm going to stop trying to put together troops in the Module System along side modelling and texturing my equipment.

Bots.

But isn't your whole point that bots =/= players?

Let's say two of our patrols meet on the map and engage. It's 20 v. 20.

With your large clan, you can easily have 20 players in a single match, I might be able to get 5 players and 15 bots.

This is obviously not a balanced engagement.

I don't want to be the cynic one, but it happens.

See it like this:
The US have 5300 nukes. Malta has only some expensive night club on its arsenal.

But here's the good news: smaller clan will be able to form alliances and cooperation agreements against bigger clans, summing up their resources to face the bigger threat.

That's why i would love a game like this: inter-clan diplomacy, intrigues, alliances, strategy.

This is a medieval campaign, there are no nukes. Small clans shouldn't be so disadvantaged that they can't do anything against larger clans unless they ally with 90% of all participating clans. I think they shouldn't be disadvantaged much at all, as larger clans already have the advantage that they have a larger pool to choose players from.