Warlords: Three Kingdoms

Lance brought this up to me before I told him to post it here, so I have been thinking about it, and have some thoughts myself.

While it is not likely that a duelist who has been weakened from a duel would recover immediately, I think we do need to take into consideration that a round is about equivalent to 3 days. Any sort of recovery we do would have to take that into consideration.

I can recall RotP and RTK 3 allowing the recovery of 5 stamina per round. The relation of their round to time is just smaller, though, as in both games it was 5 morale recovered per day.

I could see something like 10 HP/round recovery as not being too complex. It would not even have to be calculated unless another duel was challenged.

Do not think I am just spamming the site with trying to win back that battle....
I sorta think the correct challenge rules make the challenge skill underpowered.
1. Most commanders have high Judgement, unlike Tien who forfited it for higher Cha
2. jugding from 1 you really can't force any one to duel that wouldn't want to be fighting other wise

what I think should be done is have (Attackers Cha-Defenders Judgement)+ (Defender's might-Attacker's might*)+10*skill level
*bottoms out at 0

so this way a 90 cha duelist with challenge 3 could still get 50% duel rate against a 70 jugdement commander.

What I wonder from that statement is this, how on earth would having a high charisma benifit you at all in a duel ?
"Well, I am not stronger than you, but if can I persuade you to lower youre weapon ?"
Now dont get me wrong, I'm sure in some duel tactics charisma would be used, but for hte actual fighting, I dont think so.

charisma is used to insult the enemy into fighting, judgement is used to be able to ignore the words as petty threats

That makes sense. I Thought you meant consider Charisma for defense or something more vital to a duel.

For tactics, as I said, makes perfect sense.

Charisma is already used in Taunt and Intimidate. It is also already used in Challenge.

The above proposal is - as far as I can tell - exactly what currently exists.

I believe the change that Royalspork is proposing is for an alteration to the Defenders Might - Attackers might part of the formula, making certain that the number can not go into negatives.

As it currently stands, If someone designed for utterly streamlined for challenges lets say: 90 might and 90 Charisma were challenging a decent war judgement general of 70 in those stats. Even with challenge III the chance to force the duel would only be 30%. That's fairly low for a tier III skill considering the power of other tier III combat ploys, the circumstances required, and the ability to counter it with use of a Champion.

Bottoming it out at zero would give the same character with Challenge III a 50% chance of success. Considering with better equipment a 70 war/judgement character could still win the duel or at least escape, thats not bad at all.

Got it - of course I really wouldn't like to limit the importance of the challengee's stats that way.

(Attacker's Cha - Defender's Jud) + (Defender's Might - Attacker's Might)+30% chance to force a duel.

A 90 Might 90 Charisma attacker challenges a defender with 30 might and 100 judgment and has no chance of succeeding (he's to smart to fall for that) under current rules but has a 20% chance under that change. Judgment is weakened considerably that way - and I don't really think it should be.

Also 50% chance of success on a skill that powerful is pretty far out of balance with other skills. At least in this game

In regards to inactive rulers...

[14:03] Kimche: Here's a suggestion for the next game: If any. If a ruler/kingdom goes inactive for two straight KT's, his troops/armaments are divided equally among all officers as personal armies, they can defend how they like their cities and villages, if not, it's up for grabs.
[14:03] Xiang_Zhuang: Kimche, you should post that somewhere. There's no way I'm going to remember that
[14:03] Kimche: according to rank if you'd like.

I'm bringing this up now before the game "starts", because it's something that I had a problem with last game and I think other people did, too, and it seems to be unchanged thus far. That is, the Challenge formula:

Challenge:- Level I: Officer has an ((Attacker’s Jud + Attacker’s Cha)/6) * ((Defender’s Might)/(Defender’s Int))% % chance of automatically forcing a duel. If declined, the opposing army begins battle with a morale penalty of 3.

The above is the level 1 version, which should suffice for my issue. That is, that the formula is basically a multiplication one, meaning that every person has a chance to be forced into a duel at some point. This was a huge concern last game, when so many duels could be challenged and so on. For someone with a severe Might defecit compared to their challenger, there should be no chance of a forced duel.

I never saw the previous posts about this before, but I get the feeling that LT's last post misunderstood what Spork was getting it, or if anything, has caused the system to be perverted somewhat. This really needs to go back to an addition/subtraction formula at the heart. I'd suggest either going back to the original formula from v1 and just upping the success rate slightly (since duel challenges as a whole are more rare in this system than the v1 one), or making another one entirely that takes out the averaging function of this one.

Here's the old level 1 formula from v1:
- Level I: Officer has an (Attacker's Cha - Defender's Jud) + (Defender's Might - Attacker's Might)+10% chance of automatically forcing a duel, even if normally it would be declined. If declined, the opposing army has a (Attacker’s Int + Attacker’s Cha)/5% chance of reducing the defender’s army morale by 3, or otherwise falls by 1.

Ignoring the morale change part (what was in v2 was sufficient if not better), the actual formula up here should make more sense than the v2 one, since it means people with high Judgment and low Might cannot be forced into duels. The success rate is a bit low, I think, but all that takes is a bump to the straight percentage there (the +10%). But yeah, I totally think this (or something like this) is better than what I saw in the Skills section earlier (and posted above).

As far as the stats involved go, the original formula had Might working both ways, with the defender's Might hurting them and the attacker's Might helping. Not sure why one was taken out. Defender's Jud or Int doesn't really bother me... Int might make more sense because duelists normally will have less Int and more Jud, again reinforcing who the target should be. In fact, if you take the v1 formula and switch out defender's Jud for Int, you basically grant the formula a +20% success rate against other duelists and a -20% success rate against non-duelists (in general), because of the likelihood of these people to have these stats.