2016 The Choosing Philosophy and Other Stuff

[Ry Vor]

Thought I would add a fresh thread on discussions on what the changes are and what may be, as apart from interrupting the beta threads.

So this is open to discussion on pretty much anything new to 3rd Cycle, or what needs to also become new in 3rd Cycle, and I might wax on as to why certain design decision are what they are, especially if the subjects have come up in discussion in other threads.  Just post replies to any topic you wish to opine on.

[Ry Vor]

The Early Strategic Objectives

Early Strategic Objectives in 3rd Cycle - what revisions should be made, if any?  ESO was created to have a shorter term goal, rather than almost any other game that just chases victory from the onset.  In a 12 player game, I think we want many avenues of approach, rather than a simple fixation on victory months down the road, which will ultimately not happen for 11 of 12 kingdoms.  I at some point in closing 2nd Cycle suggested making Early mean not turn 10 or turn 15, but something earlier, like turn 7 through turn 11 perhaps.  Then there might be a mid-game objective added.  This was generally not well received at that time, although in general, we were experiencing resistance to most changes.  Although veterans will remember ESO and SVC used to be assigned by the game creation process, a major change was putting new models in place that shifted those choices to the hands of the players.  With all the changes:
Does the ESO model need to be revised?
* Should the timing change?
* Is it acceptable that some kingdoms will have an easier time accomplishing their ESO than others?  Remember, we don't balance Alamaze kingdoms in each dimension, but hope to have done that across all dimensions combined.
* What suggestions do you have for new Objectives or new Rewards?

[Ry Vor]

Battles against Population Centers.

I'm inclined to revise significantly PC battles.  I acknowledge that to veteran players, they have a generic feel over time.  Some things I am considering for The Choosing and beyond include:

• The terrain of the PC will influence the defense of the PC based on the controlling kingdom.  So an Elven PC in the forest would have a substantial bump to defense, for example.  We didn't do that in Fall of Rome because it was surmised PC's were cut out of clearings, rather than (say) Elves building their PC's among the trees, or Dwarves directly within mountains, etc.
  
• Instead of PC's going directly and only off a fixed value of PC defense, the relative infrastructure of the PC influences how it fights.  So a PC with a defense of less than 5000 likely has no towers, wooden walls, etc - not offering nearly as much as a fortified town of 15,000 defense with stone walls, towers, etc.  Those PC's would enjoy greater defense and missile values than the smaller village, expressed not just in one numerical value, but in round by round combat.
  
• The traits of the owner of the PC can in some case transfer to to the PC in defense.  PC's controlled by a kingdom with Military Tradition have better trained militia, kingdoms with Cunning place traps like flooding a ditch, murder holes, or pouring boiling oil or fire, kingdoms with Siege Engineering have defensive catapults.
  

[Ry Vor]

What the heck is "blooded" (not bloodied), and why do I have to deal with it?

A Tyrant group of 20 brigades and 45,000 soldiers attacking a village of 6000 peasants doesn't gain experience from the encounter.  Soldiers become veteran when facing the possibility of death, and seeing dead comrades, and so learning what battle brings, apart from any glory.  They are tested, they gain understanding they don't gain in training exercises.  This to me is the clearest, cleanest way to show who has learned how to deal with the fear and chaos of actual combat from having survived it, and only is realized in our case of experiencing risk put to the metric of 5% group losses (not by brigade), i.e., they have been blooded.   So you don't have to split groups up if your motif is overwhelming power, but your individual brigades don't get better that way.  Same is generally true for leaders being promoted - a walkover generally doesn't do it.

[Ry Vor]

I've debated trying to introduce a friction aspect to political actions.  For example, as any student of history has seen, there is almost never just an invasion out of the blue.  There is dispute, and eventually, Casus belli.  The act to justify or provoke war.  

This can accomplish multiple objectives    "Proclaim Casus Belli" becomes a new and useful HC order.  Attacking a PC of a kingdom militarily that an attacking kingdom has no Casus belli against costs 2 points influence (13 influence becomes 11).  With a Casus Belli, there is not influence loss.  This is independent of bidding for a High Council issue, it is another agenda item separate from the issue; a proclamation that is not voted on, and costs no gold, but is the sole action for the king.  This virtuous declaration of intent actually may result in a small increase in the kingdom's influence. 

This introduces a new purpose for the High Council, can be introduced as a declaration of any kingdom by a kingdom on the High Council, sets a more serious strategic table, really seems to restrict the feasibility of coordinated 2 v 1 or 3 v 1 surprise attacks, and via the High Council is public declaration. A king might still surprise attack, without complying, but it would cost 2 points of influence.

I kind of like this for both the addition to High Council actions, universal results, defeat or at least diminish coordinated surprise attack, and bring more world affairs to the attention of all, instead of mainly regional conflicts.

[Ry Vor]

I want to clarify: this is not a moderator only thread.  I'm looking for carefully considered replies on the direction we might take immediately in The Choosing, and then then next scenario and further down the road. 

So, give input by doing a reply to any particular topic, like ESO changes. 

We're being patient with player growth, in part, to hear from the existing players on what they want to see.  This is the time for that.

[unclemike]

What the heck is "blooded" (not bloodied), and why do I have to deal with it?

A Tyrant group of 20 brigades and 45,000 soldiers attacking a village of 6000 peasants doesn't gain experience from the encounter.  Soldiers become veteran when facing the possibility of death, and seeing dead comrades, and so learning what battle brings, apart from any glory.  They are tested, they gain understanding they don't gain in training exercises.  This to me is the clearest, cleanest way to show who has learned how to deal with the fear and chaos of actual combat from having survived it, and only is realized in our case of experiencing risk put to the metric of 5% group losses (not by brigade), i.e., they have been blooded.   So you don't have to split groups up if your motif is overwhelming power, but your individual brigades don't get better that way.  Same is generally true for leaders being promoted - a walkover generally doesn't do it.

Brigade advancement is probably one of my favorite parts of the 3rd Cycle game. It's exciting to see your troops advance in level along with the various assortment of troops and experience levels on the kingdom turn report. But advancing those troops may be too difficult with the all of the requirements that are currently in place.

I'm ok with the 5% blooded rule but the other requirements for brigade advancement may be too much to contend with as a player. See my original post on what is necessary for brigade advancement: http://www.kingdomsofarcania.net/forum/s...0#pid34050

So I'm ok with #1 but not the others especially #4 which requires battles to exceed past a certain point before their troops may qualify. That one can be tough for players to estimate on how large their group may be before heading into battle. If it's too big then the battle won't last long enough and end during the initial archer phase. If too small then possibly the same problem with the additional risk of losing leaders/wizards. So #4 is one that I would like to see removed and I would drop some of the others since they seem to be distracting from the enjoyment of the game.

[unclemike]

Companion brigades are another favorite of mine for 3rd Cycle but the requirement of having a kingdom brigade to be at a certain experience level is becoming too difficult for the players to deal with. I would keep the current leader/terrain requirements since those make sense but drop the kingdom brigade requirement. Then players wouldn't have to treat their kingdom brigades with kid gloves and enjoy playing the game from turn 1.

[Ry Vor]

I'm in the process of revising the criteria for brigade elevation, brigade elimination and Companion recruitment.  We'll also change some of the battle results text and highlight when a brigade gains experience.  I'll publish that when done and Mike can confirm when it is coded, and then we'll get feedback from the betas as to whether actual results seem to bare out the intention.

[Jumpingfist]

Blooded. Couple issues with this one.
The concept that having a certain percentage of your friends die to get promoted is ridiculous to me having served in the military. The average Roman Legionair had a mortality rate of 40% over 25 years of service compared to a normal mortality rate of 25% over the same period during that time. I think there is no arguement that the Romans were likely the most veteran and elite organized military of there time. The US lost 6800 troops out of 2.5 million that were sent to Iraq and Afghanistan or 0.3%. Iraq lost 50k of its approx 350k military troop during that time, 14%. Would you say the US basically has no veterans? And the Iraqi has more?
From a game perspective it is basically dictating a tactic that to my knowledge never exitisted any where in history where you purposely send in a force with the goal that you will loose a certain amount of troops.
I think blooded and other items like battle ratio, battle length are fine to be a part of troop/brigade advancement but should not be gating items. Experience is the number 1 item for advancement being involved in the real situation. Some experiences have a greater chance to advance. If your unit has fought in 5 battles (1/8 a maximum length game just in battles) with no brigade advancing under any condition likely something is wrong.