Document Goals:
1) Forts actually useful to "Gamers" subtype of player.
2) Forts consistant with world logic for "Roleplayer" and "Casual" subtype of player.
3) Forts provide net benefit for "Casual" and "Roleplayer" subtype of player.
4) Resolve ZoC type problems for AI and players.
Constraints:
1) It is not wanted to be the case that it is desirable to have a Fort in every province.
2) Forts restricting movement in a consistant way is a developer design goal.
Current Implimentation Problems:
1) Fort is not mathematically nor tactically useful, so they will never be built by "Gamer" subtype players. "Gamer" subtype player will quickly realise this and delete/remove all of their forts.
2) Knowing that forts are sub-optimal, "Gamer" subtype players will often annihilate each other due to a lack of defenses, as well as crushing "Roleplayer" and "Casual" subtype players much more easily, due to the military and economic negative impacts of forts on such players.
3) Forts weaken all A.I. players considerably, by stripping them of the money they need to have a competitive military. It can actually cause, in some cases, the complete economic collapse of an A.I. nation.
4) Zone of Control is inconsistant and frustrating for players to deal with. It also frustrates the AI in certain cases, causing undesirable behaviour.
Proposed Changes:
1) Revise Fort cost down to 100G/level. This will price it at just slightly more expensive than the mercenaries needed to siege it. We do want to favour attacking over defense, but not so considerably. This will make a fort consistantly priced with other buildings.
2) The cost to maintain a fort will decrease to 0.25G per fort. This will make them less economically damaging to all types of players and the A.I. This pricing will ensure that forts will not be built in all provinces as it will still present some level of economic damage. "Gamer" Subtype players are still likely to delete many or all of their forts, but it is less rewarding and possibly more tactically punishing to do so. The chances of A.I. economic meltdown due to forts is greatly reduced.
3) Forts will prevent movement past themselves only. So if you move into a fort from any tile, your only move will be to go back to the tile from which you came while the fort stands. The idea will be to make a "wall" of forts. Their functionality on movement is more obvious, more realistic for "Roleplayer" subtypes. Forts on their own can be circumvented easily, by going around them. ZoC inconsistances are eliminated. Since the only available move into a hostile fort, is to move away from it into the previous tile, problems with movement from "fort to fort to fort" will also be eliminated. "Great wall of China" is now a thing.
4) A relief army arriving to assist a besieged allied Fort shall be considered the defender. Conferring useful tactical advantage for "Gamer" subtype players to exploit. This will likely also benefit other player types to some degree.
Other notes:
1) Simplification of existing rules is also a benefit.
2) Possible graphical change to show (an arrow?) from where an army attacked a fort (and thus the tile to which they may retreat).
3) If the attack is from a water tile and the transports are gone, do we wipe the attacker out? This would be the most consistant move, but also very punishing.
1) Forts actually useful to "Gamers" subtype of player.
2) Forts consistant with world logic for "Roleplayer" and "Casual" subtype of player.
3) Forts provide net benefit for "Casual" and "Roleplayer" subtype of player.
4) Resolve ZoC type problems for AI and players.
Constraints:
1) It is not wanted to be the case that it is desirable to have a Fort in every province.
2) Forts restricting movement in a consistant way is a developer design goal.
Current Implimentation Problems:
1) Fort is not mathematically nor tactically useful, so they will never be built by "Gamer" subtype players. "Gamer" subtype player will quickly realise this and delete/remove all of their forts.
2) Knowing that forts are sub-optimal, "Gamer" subtype players will often annihilate each other due to a lack of defenses, as well as crushing "Roleplayer" and "Casual" subtype players much more easily, due to the military and economic negative impacts of forts on such players.
3) Forts weaken all A.I. players considerably, by stripping them of the money they need to have a competitive military. It can actually cause, in some cases, the complete economic collapse of an A.I. nation.
4) Zone of Control is inconsistant and frustrating for players to deal with. It also frustrates the AI in certain cases, causing undesirable behaviour.
Proposed Changes:
1) Revise Fort cost down to 100G/level. This will price it at just slightly more expensive than the mercenaries needed to siege it. We do want to favour attacking over defense, but not so considerably. This will make a fort consistantly priced with other buildings.
2) The cost to maintain a fort will decrease to 0.25G per fort. This will make them less economically damaging to all types of players and the A.I. This pricing will ensure that forts will not be built in all provinces as it will still present some level of economic damage. "Gamer" Subtype players are still likely to delete many or all of their forts, but it is less rewarding and possibly more tactically punishing to do so. The chances of A.I. economic meltdown due to forts is greatly reduced.
3) Forts will prevent movement past themselves only. So if you move into a fort from any tile, your only move will be to go back to the tile from which you came while the fort stands. The idea will be to make a "wall" of forts. Their functionality on movement is more obvious, more realistic for "Roleplayer" subtypes. Forts on their own can be circumvented easily, by going around them. ZoC inconsistances are eliminated. Since the only available move into a hostile fort, is to move away from it into the previous tile, problems with movement from "fort to fort to fort" will also be eliminated. "Great wall of China" is now a thing.
4) A relief army arriving to assist a besieged allied Fort shall be considered the defender. Conferring useful tactical advantage for "Gamer" subtype players to exploit. This will likely also benefit other player types to some degree.
Other notes:
1) Simplification of existing rules is also a benefit.
2) Possible graphical change to show (an arrow?) from where an army attacked a fort (and thus the tile to which they may retreat).
3) If the attack is from a water tile and the transports are gone, do we wipe the attacker out? This would be the most consistant move, but also very punishing.
Last edited:
- 47
- 7
- 3
Upvote
0
