Fortresses

General conversation and discussion about the game, feedback and suggestions

Moderators: psantos, llandeiro

Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 5:23 pm

Fortresses

Postby zemaria » Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:23 pm

In our alliance, we are having an interesting discussion about fortresses.

There are players who say that they should be downgraded, but I always though they are good to control territories. Foe instance, a fortress 2 in a farm area can be very interesting. One can build Farm 5, and produce 150 food per turn, which can feed 4000 men besides 2000 in the garrison.

Is this not correct?

Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:13 pm

Re: Fortresses

Postby psantos » Sun Aug 28, 2011 2:41 pm

It is even better than that. Troops in garrison consume half the food. And in the new version, you will be able to take the men out of Garrison, or put a field army in Garrison.

Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:19 pm

Re: Fortresses

Postby eldallone » Fri Oct 07, 2011 6:57 pm

And they could increase all infrastructure productions/income, population happiness, increase land efficiency making the global income less dependent from capital distance, etc...
And all this could have the same positive impact to all the surrounding territories close to the fortress...

And it would be nice to have a different approach to facilities build/upgrade and downgrade:

1) The resources for construction/upgrading should be sent to the territories only when needed. Doesn't seem realistic the need to have them all before starting the construction, and to sent them all to the construction site. If you run out of resources the facilities would not be completed and the player should have the possibility to chose to continue with the construction when mats available, to pause the construction and to destroy it. Only after completion the land would benefit from it.

2) "Downgrade time" should more or less depend at construction time and facility type. And like construction, downgrade would give to the owner of the facility every turn an amount of resources for each downgrade. If the downgrade time require to destroy or lower the facility level is reached the facility is destroyed or downgraded, but if stopped before reaching the downgrade time the facility would be damaged and to fully benefit from it the player would need to rebuild it spending resources. As an example: a level 2 fortress 40% damaged would have a global efficiency somewhere around a level 1 fortress and a level 2 fortress.

Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:13 pm

Re: Fortresses

Postby psantos » Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:39 pm

Yes, currently fortresses already improve the loyalty of the populations in the territories they are in. And we are thinking to give them some other benefits on the line you suggest.

Facility Upgrade is a bit more complicated, because it would involve changes in the engine, and in the interface. I think the simpler "pay in advance" to build works reasonably well, and is used in many games, like the Total War games for example.

Facility downgrade time is a design issue, trying to balance "realism" with "fun". To be totally realistic, one should allow some facilities to be destroyed by passing armies. Many times, medieval armies would make forays into enemy lands just to destroy cultures and steal animals / people. But we found this to be too frustrating for players. So the compromise now is that to downgrade you must own the territory, but all downgrades take the same time. A more advanced infrastructure is much more easier to damage than a more rudimentary one.

Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:19 pm

Re: Fortresses

Postby eldallone » Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:48 am

A Fortress should work has a second capital ensuring a 80% (or what ever) base Efficiency. This bonus would affect all surrounding territories (the same way it works for the capital) but in a less efficient manner.

Since fortress are expensive, take some time to build, and are a risky investment at non safe territories, to have a new infrastructure: "fortification", only available when an army is present, cheap and fast to build, also consuming some soldiers from the army (not refundable), that would ensure at least 50% (or what ever) base efficiency (more if capital/fortress bonus is higher) with direct benefit to loyalties increase, would be nice.

Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:19 pm

Re: Fortresses

Postby eldallone » Sun Oct 16, 2011 1:49 am

Even so non garrisoned fortresses are always player responsibility to avoid being taken by ridiculous size armies (<150 soldiers), depending at their level and population fortresses should have a base defense value.

Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:13 pm

Re: Fortresses

Postby psantos » Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:07 pm

eldallone wrote:A Fortress should work has a second capital ensuring a 80% (or what ever) base Efficiency. This bonus would affect all surrounding territories (the same way it works for the capital) but in a less efficient manner.


What you propose would be computationally very heavy. Already having to calculate the distance of each territory to the capital is heavy. We need to make some stress tests when we deploy, to see how far we can go with stuff that demands CPU time.

eldallone wrote:Since fortress are expensive, take some time to build, and are a risky investment at non safe territories, to have a new infrastructure: "fortification", only available when an army is present, cheap and fast to build, also consuming some soldiers from the army (not refundable), that would ensure at least 50% (or what ever) base efficiency (more if capital/fortress bonus is higher) with direct benefit to loyalties increase, would be nice.


army presence already improves loyalty. I have been toying with the idea of army fortification in the sense you proposed, for some time. The problem is that it is a whole new type of facility, with different rules. And Almansur is already a complex game to learn:( The priority now is to make it easier to learn and enjoy, so that we can grow a community of players... After that, we will see...

Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:19 pm

Re: Fortresses

Postby eldallone » Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:00 pm

psantos wrote:What you propose would be computationally very heavy. Already having to calculate the distance of each territory to the capital is heavy. We need to make some stress tests when we deploy, to see how far we can go with stuff that demands CPU time.


If its heavy for you current hardware, you can simplify it by just giving the bonus to the territory and all the adjacent...

psantos wrote:army presence already improves loyalty. I have been toying with the idea of army fortification in the sense you proposed, for some time. The problem is that it is a whole new type of facility, with different rules. And Almansur is already a complex game to learn:( The priority now is to make it easier to learn and enjoy, so that we can grow a community of players... After that, we will see...


I really don't think Almansur is hard to learn... ;)

Maybe having direct "tool tips" over all data presented at the interface would make it easier to understand and play, like for instance over the "Efficiency": "Roads per level increases X%, Fortresses give a base Y% efficiency and Fortifications a base Z%". This way the player would have all he needed to know at the interface, and for more detailed information he could check the Almasur rules at "wiki.almansur.net".

And as a player I rather have one more facility that I build and don't have to worry about it any more, instead of having at my map or armies interface dozens of armies that only makes the visualization and management of things more complicated...

Return to The Round Table

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest