News Update "comment"

General conversation and discussion about the game, feedback and suggestions

Moderators: psantos, llandeiro

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

News Update "comment"

Postby eldallone » Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:01 pm

-New system to subscribe Historical Games - You will not have to wait that a game is full and can start to play immediately;


I really don't see any advantage with this implementation because it will only unbalance the game in favor of those who subscribed the game earlier and can take advantage of uncontrolled lands. Even if you implement some AI routines its easier to overcome them, or if they are really hard and can perform better than a human player in this case the advantage goes to the player that subscribed the game later...

Since I just come from my 1st an historical cenario (Hispania 1135 VII) which was almost destroyed at the beginning because of the huge number inactive lands specially from Arab side, what I would like to have is a system were land that are inactive after a few turns (specially at the start of the cenario) become free so new players willing to rule the land can take over them.

Since I start my Almansur experience I played 5 cenarios and at all them almost half of the lands were inactive from the start and a measure like I proposed for sure would make the cenarios more challenging and fair.

-New economic efficiency system based on distance to capital instead of the old total territories system. Now capital placement is crucial, the game promotes intelligent expansion.


Will this measure be applied across all games? If not, I hope you keep in mind that in certain games where you have two factions (like the Hispania cenarios) its very hard to "promote intelligent expansion", unless if the idea is to promote back stabbing between faction allies...

- We removed the infamous "Battle -> rest" lock


Are you planning other changes at the movement system?

Will it become possible to temporize the movements. Like: Train 5 days ; Rest 10 days ; Battle (normal) to XPTO and Rest?

Are you considering a better way to simplify and increase movement coordination of allied army stacks? Something like having a follow order to a specific army? Ofc it would always be in the hands of the players to chose has leader of the stack the slowest army otherwise the results would not be the expected because some armies couldn't follow the "leader". In big cenarios were the time between turns is very short this would help the player to keep their coordination without an outstanding effort.

You could even implement the movements with order like: Rest until army XPTO arrive and them follow army XPTO or any order specific order. This for sure would be "more realistic" and would turn the game much more tactical but on the other hand without the coordination failures between armies maybe the game would become a bit more monotonous...

-Food is now consumed at the end of the month, as already happened with gold, and recruiting costs now food, to avoid suicide tactics.


From my short experience at Almansur food have always been the most important resource that directly limits the size of your army.

Since I come from a cenario where we had to face enemies with double our land and population ("Game Ending" stats) and because of this we always needed to manage our food consumption above our production (what kept us alive) I fear that the need of food to recruit may unbalance even more the chances for the side with higher food production...

Since the effects of not having enough food to feed your entire army can't be controlled by the players it would be nice if you would let players control with precision the result of lack of food without forcing them to simply chose between demobilizing part of their troops or just suffer the consequences that can become catastrophic if they affect armies that will fight enemies during the turn.

To improve food management players should be allowed to control every turn the amount of food they give to their contingents like: full ration, half ration, double ration... This way when food become a scarce resource until you can recover with some friendly help or just by take back or conquering farms it would be possible to reduce the global food consumption without having to demobilize troops or without the risk of having armies with low status or rebelling troops at the battle front. The double ration could be a way to reduce the status lose or increase the status recovery (what ever) of the slowest troops like the spearman who are always with very low status specially at campaigns were they need to be constantly moving....

I particularly dislike the downgrade system because the way it works if you don't manage to recover the territory on the next turn all the downgrades will succeed regardless to the time it takes to build or upgrade the infrastructures. Since players can only benefit from these infrastructures if they control them and the best they can is to avoid the others to gain the resources by ending the turn conquering them, it would be nice to have a "pillage" order where it would be possible to steal resources from your enemies and somehow discourage the destruction of the infrastructures you can't keep. This way if you have food troubles you can always chose to instruct your armies to pillage your enemy territories and benefit from a part of their production! :twisted:

And if you really want to move it even further you could implement and order were the army could feed from the wild resources of the territories they stand or cross while moving, this could be a way to spare food and to gather some food from any territory without the need to pillage, particularly important when you are inside friendly land.

- There were done lots of balance adjustments in the available forces and their costs.


At the fantasy games you really need to balance the races military units they are very unbalanced, and the lack of variety of some races (like for instance the dwarfs) reduce their tactical options and make them very boring to play.

And for instance to allow a Dwarf only to raise his mines to level 4 its very odd when an Imperial can raise the same mine to level 5. To avoid "schemes" like having a Imperial raising mines owned by a Dwarf above level 4 and after it the dwarf raising them without no limit (bug that you can check at "Land of the Six XIX"), applied to any kind of infrastructure with different levels limits between races, the level limits should be the same to all races/factions and only the efficiency taken from the infrastructure should be different from each race/factions. For instance dwarfs would have better efficiency from mines than imperials and on the other hand imperials would have much higher efficiency from cities, farms, stables, etc, than dwarfs, and so on...

These are just some of the things we have been working on. There are much more coming...


I agree there are so many features that could be implemented to make Almansur even better and a unique game!

Regards,

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

Re: News Update "comment"

Postby psantos » Sun Aug 28, 2011 3:03 pm

Thanks for the comments.

As a suggestion, maybe it would be easier if you divided each comment into a separate post, so that it is easier to discuss.

This iteration of Almansur is called Almansur 2.2.

Almansur 1.0 had many of the most complicated features you are proposing regarding movement orders and supply. What we found was that it made the game too complicated for the new players. That is why many things were simplified in Almansur 2.0. In some aspects, we simplified too much, and now in Almansur 2.2 we are trying to find the sweet spot.

The objective is to have a game that can be learned easily by a new player, but that an experienced player will find strategically deep. Some of the more advanced systems of army control and options will be available to the Premium players.

We also see inactive players as a problem, and that is why we are working on ways to minimize that problem.

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

Re: News Update "comment"

Postby psantos » Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:07 am

eldallone wrote:
- There were done lots of balance adjustments in the available forces and their costs.


At the fantasy games you really need to balance the races military units they are very unbalanced, and the lack of variety of some races (like for instance the dwarfs) reduce their tactical options and make them very boring to play.

And for instance to allow a Dwarf only to raise his mines to level 4 its very odd when an Imperial can raise the same mine to level 5. To avoid "schemes" like having a Imperial raising mines owned by a Dwarf above level 4 and after it the dwarf raising them without no limit (bug that you can check at "Land of the Six XIX"), applied to any kind of infrastructure with different levels limits between races, the level limits should be the same to all races/factions and only the efficiency taken from the infrastructure should be different from each race/factions. For instance dwarfs would have better efficiency from mines than imperials and on the other hand imperials would have much higher efficiency from cities, farms, stables, etc, than dwarfs, and so on...


In fact, there was a couple of bugs here, some of them went back to version 1 of Almansur! I wonder why nobody reported before. probably because they were enjoying the exploit. The bugs are corrected now (in the new version). Dwarves can now raise mines to level 5 (and get the beneficts of high efficiency), and nobody can raise facilities above the race limit. Thank you for pointing this up.

Return to The Round Table

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest