Feedback and Suggestions

Moderator: Game Masters

Locked
Brother Dun
Marquis
Posts: 3180
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:03 pm
Location: Ruthlessness!

Post by Brother Dun »

Shi Zhi Mi, you have to think about some of the battle related things now...

1:
Hit & Run - army attempts to seize supplies, strike with surprise, and cause havoc and destruction while suffering little in return. Attack receives a 15% penalty. Defense is unaffected. Speed receives a 30% bonus. This strategy receives bonuses against Standard and Fighting Withdrawl Strategies, and receives penalties against Charge and Full Retreat strategies.
There IS a 15% attack penalty involved in Hit & Run. You -have- to think about that when you're wondering what casualties you will deal. The %'s do not disappear if your strategy is called, they are still there, but my guess is that the bad ones are lessened while the good ones are heightened, but there is always the chance that this is not so. Remember, there are both good and bad aspects of each strategy. You picked one that lowers the amount of casualties dealt.

2: I like how it is agreed upon now. If you did it by casualties dealt, then it would completely change how war was fought. Let's use this as an example, the American Civil War, in all of those battles between Lee and Grant. Grant won them, even though Lee's troops generally dealt more casualties, because the casualties sustained by grant were a smaller portion of his final fighting force. In this time period, it was the same way, a war of attrition, -especially- when in a siege battle. It's not so much casualties dealt, but rather it is how much of your force is left after the battle. So lets say the smaller force deals 2000 more casualties, but the larger force only takes a tenth of it's total force in damage, and yet the smaller force takes a fourth of it's total force in damage.

3: I don't see what you mean. Many of my commanders have a perfectly fine intelligence score. And the second challenger takes a penalty to his challenge success rate as well. It's still fine by me.

4: You should have received spy information, yes, but that only happened last month.

5: Honestly, how did the armaments/armies effect the outcome of the game so far? They haven't. The only signifigant case is Shi Guo Xing taking out Lu Ning. And Shi Guo Xing was a free officer. If you're trying to say that I got my armaments from BPs, then you're definately wrong. All of the stuff I got from any officers who joined me is long since dead.

6: Zhen Tong was the CiC for two months. Morale of the army was low. Zhen Tong has a higher command score. Oh, and let's not forget that your forces ran away after butchering men mercilessly. I wouldn't say it'd be too hard to make a power play then.

7: I see no problem with forced retreats. See Kymvir's explanation.
Zu Yanghei zì 智盜 'Zhì​dào​' (Knowledge Thief)
Shi Zhi Mi
Colonel
Posts: 793
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 3:25 pm

Post by Shi Zhi Mi »

1) Yes the penalty was taken into effect when I brought that up but a 3000 swing is not enough to reflect "Calling the strategy" as it were. I had a couple of guys kicking off Raid III during that attack. It should have been more drastic.
2) Disagree as I already stated though you forget one aspect of the Civil War. Union won because they had more industrialsim on their side and more soldiers. In game terms Lee kept on winning battles but Grant's constant reinforcements hammered away what forces Lee had. Lee's forces killed more then Grant's did. Thus he was the victor. It was only when Grant's forces stubbornly defeated Lee that Grant won via reinforcement. It should still be "Less Casualties = Victory" Such a decision should never be in the hands of any staff member. There should be a set guideline on how to achieve victory.
3) Penalty or not the Challenge is a champion battle. Not a general vs general vs general vs general vs general vs general battle. All you are doing is spamming the challenge option. Anyone can field an army full of meatheads and have them spam Challenge. There should be one challenge to reflect one champion vs one champion.
4) Agreed
5) It was your armorments that carried the day at Ji from what I saw. The armies were mostly matched save for a couple putz generals under Zang Tu. Everytime a strategy was not called on either side your side came out with a greater victory. You had the greater amount and superior armaments.
6) Doesn't matter. Zang Tu was CiC and ruler. Morale was low due to the challenge spam which I explained earlier. By the rules, from what I understand, the CiC has sole control of the army and the garrison commander has sole control of the garrison. Zang Tu, during that battle, was both. All of a sudden Zhen tong was able to take soldiers away from the army that Zang Tu rules. I am not saying that it was bad what I am saying is what are the qualifications for such a thing.
7) And I answered as well. This is probably the biggest sticking point.
The Xiong Nu have left the building!

Liu Bei(43) 90-40-63-62-80
Military Adminstrator II, Marksman II, Lure I, Diplomat II, Politican I
Item: Dai Lu(Horse: +3 Speed, + 1 Attack)
Xiang Zhuang
Marquis
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 12:01 pm

Post by Xiang Zhuang »

Shi Zhi Mi wrote:2) Disagree as I already stated though you forget one aspect of the Civil War. Union won because they had more industrialsim on their side and more soldiers. In game terms Lee kept on winning battles but Grant's constant reinforcements hammered away what forces Lee had. Lee's forces killed more then Grant's did. Thus he was the victor. It was only when Grant's forces stubbornly defeated Lee that Grant won via reinforcement. It should still be "Less Casualties = Victory" Such a decision should never be in the hands of any staff member. There should be a set guideline on how to achieve victory.
The staff doesn't decide who wins the battle, there is an actual formula, based upon the percentage of troops you lost, the amount of troops you still retain, and your morale, I think. That isn't listed anywhere, but in general, those are the most obvious factors for deciding who wins an engagement. Can't really say much more than that without starting to give away parts of the battle formula, which obviously can't be done. But there is no decision made by the staff about who wins or who doesn't. There is an actual guideline.
Fáng Ai (防哀) hao Aishī (皚獅, White Lion), Duke of Yan (Yan Gong)
101*.87*.44.78.39
Dash I, Gongshu II, Jianshu II, Smith II, Trainer II, Wall II

Sim Turn Length Analysis - Last Updated 4.06
Jiang Chao
Officer
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 2:23 pm

Post by Jiang Chao »

You guys are arguing over a stupid mather...

In a Field Battle, the one to route the other force is the Victor..

In a Siege, the one to succesfully take the city\area is the victor, if the defenders manage to fend of the attackers, they will be the victor...

Simple ain't it? Or maybe i'm wrong...
Tevye
Game Master Emeritus
Posts: 1537
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:39 pm

Post by Tevye »

It's not a stupid matter at all, and it's far more complicated than you think.

The question is not who wins the battle, but who wins the engagement in the battle.

The determination of who wins the engagement is done by the Battle Calc itself. No one knows the formula but Kymvir, really. It involves morale, troops left, prisoners, troops killed, and basically everything else.

Now, onto the matter of forced retreats. Personally, I am for the forced retreat for RP reasons. First of all, food is not something that can be transported well. Field rations and whatnot really did not exsit for the most part. Soldiers needed to gather food from the towns, villages, and fields in the surrounding area. If the troops were being beat back by the defenders, they would be unable to gather food. Their only option would be to fall back. I do feel that the capture rolls should be changed slightly for a forced retreat. Maybe /1.5 or 1.25. Also, if territory has been gained in a province, a retreat should not be forced because troops can gather supplies from that town, village, city, or whatever.

<hr>

Now, this is a completely different matter. I would like to address the matter of forts and fortifications. We don't have them, and I think we should. A fort could be built as a provincial defensive position or to guard a city. A provincial one would just be a territory that troops can chill in to reinforce at other locations. It could host a military building (Maybe 2), but would not collect troops or income.

Also, a fort could be built to defend a city. This means, that to attack the city, the fort must first be taken. It's a slight advantage to defenders that could be very useful, but not too overpowered. Give them 500 SP and work with Engineer. Also, an army fighting in a fort gives the defenders a 10% defense bonus.

This was really disorganized and sloppy, but meh, whatever.
Xiang Deng (33)
38-20-90*-89*-42
Civil Admin II, Engineer II, Jeer II, Public Planner II
http://simwarlords.net/forum/viewtopic. ... 86#p167186
Duke Williams
Marquis
Posts: 1968
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 9:22 pm
Location: "Something smells... Toasty."
Contact:

Post by Duke Williams »

Hmmm... I was wondering. Whenever someone loses the second engagement and/or forced into a seige all the captured troops they had are released to the enemy army. Now this just confuzzels me... I mean the whole captured forced? You would think a certian % would have been forced to retreat with the army, a certian % killed/lost in the insueing chaos, and a certian % returning safely to the main army at the cost of lower morale if they're added back to the force(They 'were' captured afterall and are pretty battered).

Just a thought...
Gu Xi (15)
Stats: 79-18-85-74-65
Skills: Civil Administrator II, Confuse III, Diplomat I, Envelop I, Military Administrator II, Politician I
Duke Williams
Marquis
Posts: 1968
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 9:22 pm
Location: "Something smells... Toasty."
Contact:

Post by Duke Williams »

The decision earlier to force personal armies into fighting was in error. Personal armies can retreat without being forced into a fight. We forgot that this had been ruled on in the past in this manner, and it will continue to be ruled in that manner.

The best (and only) defense against a personal army has always been a patrolling force. With a strong enough one, a personal army can't really damage you whatsoever.
Dude, no way! This ruling is completely unfair! How are personal armies ever tobe destroy'd than? They're like invincible and can practically stay in your province with you being able todo much. Sure you can try and force them away but all they have todo is retreat than return the next month todo what they wish.

True you may counter them with patrolling forces but that is only if they attack! If they have an army in your territory and keep running back to their territory than they are like invulnerable to plot as they wish without EVER fearing of a Kingdoms larger army being able to destroy them.

I for one think this silly and unfair ruling should be changed where the personaly MUST fight and if they want to retreat than they MUST use one of the retreat strageties.

PS: Also Personal Armies act via PT while Kingdom Armies have to waste KT actions to just chase the Personal Army out of their territory to have the personal Army just come back the next month to continue their operations as if nothing happened.
Gu Xi (15)
Stats: 79-18-85-74-65
Skills: Civil Administrator II, Confuse III, Diplomat I, Envelop I, Military Administrator II, Politician I
Tevye
Game Master Emeritus
Posts: 1537
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:39 pm

Post by Tevye »

Okay, so explain something to me.

A personal force is sitting in the province.

The ruler has a large patrolling force and a large provincial army.

The personal force attacks; BOOM instant death.

The personal force sits there and does nothing.

What's the problem with that?
Xiang Deng (33)
38-20-90*-89*-42
Civil Admin II, Engineer II, Jeer II, Public Planner II
http://simwarlords.net/forum/viewtopic. ... 86#p167186
Duke Williams
Marquis
Posts: 1968
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 9:22 pm
Location: "Something smells... Toasty."
Contact:

Post by Duke Williams »

You dont need to attack todo something. Personal Armies are usually owned by rival warlords who arent in your services. Dont see anything barring them from sitting tere and than uesing their army for plots and the like as they so desire.

And what gets me is the fact that Personal armies are invincible when THEY are attacked.
Gu Xi (15)
Stats: 79-18-85-74-65
Skills: Civil Administrator II, Confuse III, Diplomat I, Envelop I, Military Administrator II, Politician I
Xiang Zhuang
Marquis
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 12:01 pm

Post by Xiang Zhuang »

Duke Williams wrote:You dont need to attack todo something. Personal Armies are usually owned by rival warlords who arent in your services. Dont see anything barring them from sitting tere and than uesing their army for plots and the like as they so desire.

And what gets me is the fact that Personal armies are invincible when THEY are attacked.
The ruling was made by how the rule has been enforced. There is already talk of making a change so that personal armies cannot evade attack forever. If you have a solid suggestion, please, say it. Now is the time.

I would add that PC's can't take personal army actions in months when they attack. Officers engaged in battle can't take KT actions, so they can't take personal army actions. If the kingdom does nothing in the first month, and chases them away in the second, then both sides have lost equal amounts of actions.
Fáng Ai (防哀) hao Aishī (皚獅, White Lion), Duke of Yan (Yan Gong)
101*.87*.44.78.39
Dash I, Gongshu II, Jianshu II, Smith II, Trainer II, Wall II

Sim Turn Length Analysis - Last Updated 4.06
Locked