V7

[Phailak]

Well roads are coming, hopefully it will help but if not we'll think of ways to have folks defend

[AaronH229]

My point was made, as currently there is no incentive to conserve strength or make any strategic decision as there is no downside to juat throwing everything you have at the next target knowing the worse that can happen is you get tp insta warp back to defend

[Phailak]

My point was made, as currently there is no incentive to conserve strength or make any strategic decision as there is no downside to juat throwing everything you have at the next target knowing the worse that can happen is you get tp insta warp back to defend

So by putting negatives if you do come back to defend will encourage people more to defend? What am I missing here?

[Anoriand]

His point is right now there is no penalty to someone attacking every turn. Take me. I have 2 villages right now. Next turn, if I wanted, I could attack a town because, hey, if I get attacked I'll just cancel my attack and go defend myself. But if there's a penalty to doing that, it will make me think twice about attack willy-nilly because I know there's a penalty if I have to defend myself. It becomes more likely I'll take time to prepare before attack rather than zerg rushing.

Now, personally, I dunno that I think it's necessary because I think roads/paths and making things become regional kinda solved the problem already. Every attack has more weight because everything is localized and you are restricted in where you can attack. But I could be wrong.

[Zhang Gao]

I agree with anoriand. When you have limited paths of expansion and each expansion potentially opens up new avenues to be attacked, I think the zerg attacks will end and people will be more likely to defend key locations.

[Phailak]

Well, the reason people attack each turn is simply because they want their whole army in one piece right, I assume one figures MAYBE someone attacks me and I lose a holding but since I will be gaining one...

Also have to consider defense traps, where people defend ONE location with their whole army, usually the weakest attacker. Yes you lose holdings but your army remains pretty intact.

People won't stop themselves from attacking because their might be a penalty if they need to return. They will do so if it hurts their progress by losing a place. Part of this is the fact you can't develop a location and they are all equal except the village to town to city.

All this has been thought about but sacrificed for a quick pace game, may be time to shed that, I don't know.

First step may be the roads (which WILL happen) and we see from there. I want to make sure of one thing though, I want a LOT of battles, none of this turtling for 10 turns for one massive battle and then one guy retreats! With roads we may have to implement a sort of garrison, where soldiers will need to be stationed in specific locations, but does that put caps on soldiers?

[Phailak]

Double post

Maybe garrisons gain training and cost nothing but can ONLY defend while field armies have a cost each turn and can only attack?

[Phailak]

Going to remove the double civil skills that just use diff stats, replacing them with skills for duels, crafting AND spying. Going to change spying system so that to use the actions you need the skill, both civil and battle which means you need to assign an officer to spy. Also, going to add chance of capture to chance of reveal. In battle, spy and duels would occur in phase 1 I think

With implementation of roads, we will likely need tracking of officer location so that will also be a significant change to the civil system, won't waste time with a move function, every turn you will need to indicate where your officer IS and until next turn that will be his location.

Crafting, will switch to a more traditional I have X slots of Y type of equipment that can go there and won't limit which slot boosts which stat. Also if we do implement a trait / talent system, low end of that will be available in equipment (like escape chance, duel stats, battle stats, etc)

Field battles. No more random rolls, if more than one invader they fight for the chance for the invasion. 3 invaders, go tournament style, 2 faceoff randomly and remainder goes against defender, remaining forces fight for the location

Raid. Love this idea from Krim, goal is not to occupy but to harass / take resources. Think stronger spy ops with a lot more risk. Need to flesh this out though.

[BJR]

V7 testing!

http://simwarlords.net/warlordstest/index.php

[Phailak]

Specifically test the duel tool PLEASE

http://simwarlords.net/warlordstest/tools/dm.php

ALSO

I am thinking of these traits to add to items, any other suggestions?

Wit +10% Stat XP
Scholar +10% skill xp
Artisan +10% cp
Alluring +5% soldiers from locations
Convincing +10% soldiers from drafting
Frugal +5% gold from locations
Calculating +10% gold from getting gold like scavenge
Worker +5% armaments from locations
Scrounger +10% armaments from getting gold like scavenge
Deceitful +5% spy from locations
Keen +10% spy from getting gold like scavenge
Amiable +5% NPC from locations
Engaging +10% NPC from getting gold like scavenge
Lucky +5% chance of gaining traits on crafting items
Bloodlust +5% kills on assassin spy op
Destructive +5% more destroyed arms spy op
Charlatan +5% more on propaganda missions spy op
Nimble +5% escape
Strategic +5% tactics in battle
Insightful -5% for other tactics in battle
Slayer +5% more casualties in battle
Medic -5% less casualties in battle
Warrior +5% attack in melee
Hunter +5% attack in suport
Defender +5% defense in melee
Archer +5% defense in support
Taskmaster +10 supplies start of battle can go over 100
Motivator +10 morale start of battle can go over 100
Protector +5% escape for officers in battle
Pursuer +5% capture for officers in battle
Scavenger double spoils of war
Judge Better NPC stat rolls