Suggestion: Armies and Wars

[Nerdfish]

Fantasy kingdoms spend a great deal of time wailing on each other. Although heroes are great hunting down monsters, they are much less great at battling other kingdoms. I suggest a war making system that switches a kingdom between questing and battling modes. Note that a kingdom is less effective at dealing with monsters while at war. A kingdom beset by monsters is not at war, they just have a monster problem

Preparing for war
A kingdom prepares for war by constructing barracks which automatically recruit and train soldiers. Soldiers are strong against guards, decent against heroes, and weak against monsters. It's not wise to prepare for war while when there is a serious monster problem. To recruit soldiers more quickly, the pay of soldiers can be increased at cost of increased drain on the coffer and peasant population.

Availability of type of barrack and solider available is tied to the guilds and temples present. Heroes from these guilds and temples can be appointed as captains for the each barrack. Instead of adventuring, a captain earns a living training the soldiers in the barrack he's appointed to. To appoint a captain simply adjust the amount of gold offered by the post in each barrack. The higher pay attract more experienced heroes to the post, but also prevent them from adventuring and cost more to keep them at the post.

Guards can be mobilized as solider in a hurry, but they are not good at anything beside taking casualties and getting routed. To use guards in a war, increase the gold offered by the captain post in the guardhouse.

Blacksmiths and wizard guilds can improve the quality of soldier's equipment at a cost.

Artillery are expensive specialized upgrades for guardhouses. At peace they are manned by guards fire at wandering any monsters and lairs in range. At war they target hostile structures as priority. As artillery have enormous range and inflict at lot of damage, it's probably better to assign professional unit to operate them to increase accuracy during a war. (see planning)

Wizard towers can be upgraded with shield generators. These generators are handy in peace to ranged attack originated from monsters like dragon fire and rock throw by a golem, during wars they deflect artillery fire.

Planning a war
Majesty is about indirect control, waging wars should be no different. In the war planner, each unit (a captain and all Soldiers under his/her command) will be denoted by a flag that is initially positioned over the barrack. each unit can be assigned various way points. A time (relative to time of mobilization) can be assigned to each way point to coordinate activity between unit. A way point can be converted to a defensive position, where a second value is assigned to specify how long the unit will have to maintain the position. Way points and defensive position are contact sensitive, for example If a way point is placed on an hostile structure, the unit will attempt to storm the structure when they reach it. If a unit is assigned a defensive position on a friendly artillery piece, they will man it when they are mobilized.

Fighting a war
Of course plan is just a plan. To put it in motion. declare war against another kingdom then hit "mobilize". A list of available plan against that kingdom comes up. pick one and confirm. the units will then move out as they are told and how they conduct their business is up to the captain. For example, If they run into opposition they will probably engage, thus delaying their arrive at way point. if they are hit by several enemy unit they will probably route, and if the unit is lead by a captain with second thought, it might defect en mass to the enemy. If they defeat the enemy they will probably give chase and be annihilated by a trap. The captain will determine what to do with each situation - that is why guards or soldiers with no captain cannot mobilize.

At any given time, the a player could call of the attack, sign a peace treaty with the enemy, or in rare cases, sign an emergency alliance with the enemy against some other threat.

Things that can help winning a war
- A rogue can steal enemy's war plan before the war get started, suffice to say it could lead to surprisingly one-sided battles.

- ranged units on elevated defensive positions can inflict terrible causalities on advancing enemy units. a smart attacker will try to avoid tall buildings if possible - there is no telling if there are angry wizards inside. And a clever defender will build many, many defenses in peace if he prepares for war.

- artillery installations can pound enemy cities to rubble without ever sending a single solider his death, if they are build close enough to said city.

- it's impossible to sustain an offensive in hostile territory, especially if it's secluded, inhospitable and long way from home. Logistic problem will disable an army faster then any defense. Technology like teleportation gates and conjured rations will help greatly in subjugating violent natives.

- A dragon or two will decimate any army, take local monsters into consideration when planning an offense, or a defense, for that matter. Those pests who have been terrorizing your town might just be the thing you need to save it.

 

[Alfryd]

- artillery installations can pound enemy cities to rubble without ever sending a single solider his death, if they are build close enough to said city.

I frackin' hate this. The only thing lamer in multiplayer RTS than hero-rushing is tower-creeping. It truly is the bane of my existence.

It should be virtually impossible to establish defensive installations that close to an enemy settlement. (I recommend 'zones of control' using fiefdoms, or something similar to prevent this sort of thing. Of course, mobile siege weapons are a different matter entirely, and're fine and dandy.)


My main reservation is that I see no reason why recruited soldiers should be ineffective against monsters (or at least, any more so than heroes of equivalent skill would be.)

The idea of putting together an advance plan of war is certainly intriguing, but I think such a sequence of instructions could be assigned and executed on a barracks-by-barracks basis, rather than having to switch the entire kingdom between modes for 'war' and 'peace'.

I'm in favour of the idea overall- indeed, your ideas are quite similar to my own ruminations, with the added bonus of better realism- but I should raise some caveats. Majesty is supposed to revolve around the heroes and their actions. There needs to be an appropriate balance between the usefulness of citizen armies and heroic pre-eminence. And naturally, both heroes and citizens woulkd be subject to the normal rules of morale failure and greed required to keep them enlisted.

I certainly like the idea of being able to mix in hero 'captains' along with citizen infantry, but I would also like it if there were more options for tweaking the composition of said army. For instance, conscripts, militia, cavalry,. and siege weapons of various types could be mixed in with the force. Ideally, I'm guessing you'd want roughly 2-3 citizen 'units' for every hero in the army. This actualy nicely complements Cyberlore's original intention of using the barracks to recruit 'followers' for heroes, albeit in a different capacity. Heh!

At any rate, it's an idea which I think has great potential, but it needs to be implemented carefully.

 

[Spiderman]

Sorry, I just totally disagree with this idea as it seems to move away from the whole core of Majesty and becomes just another RTS/Sim with maybe heros as an afterthought. Either like one of those Might & Magic games which, though I've never played, sound like this from the description; Stronghold: Legends, which I think has hero leaders; or like an old Warhammer game Shadow of the Horned Rat I used to play.

I don't want to get bogged down with armies or such - there are other games for that. I want the heros.

 

[Alfryd]

I guess it depends on how much bogging down is involved. Standing armies are expensive things, so you'd probably only be able to field them for relatively short periods without a risk of bankruptcy. if you like, you can think of it in much the same capacity as followers in HoA- they provide support and backup, but they're not movers and shakers by themselves.

 

[Nerdfish]

Alfryd, the Artillery installation are countered by shield generators (wizard tower level 2 ?) as per Supreme commander. Artillery have a slow rate of fire so shields will have recharged between shots. It'd take a lot of artillery to break a shielded city. Of course that inn in the middle of nowhere will be obliterated as soon as someone declare war on you

Shields cannot recharge while under fire, so they are less effective against, say, arrow volley, unless the defender invests in an expensive and extensive network of shield generators.

Perhaps there could even be a third level wizard tower upgrade that cloaks building around it. That way a player could choose to render their settlement / military installation completely immune to long range bombardment.

The main point of the thread is the warplan and solider recruitment, you seemed to be fine with it. Let's discuss the specifics

 

[Hassat Hunter]

Planning a war
Majesty is about indirect control, waging wars should be no different. In the war planner, each unit (a captain and all Soldiers under his/her command) will be denoted by a flag that is initially positioned over the barrack. each unit can be assigned various way points. A time (relative to time of mobilization) can be assigned to each way point to coordinate activity between unit. A way point can be converted to a defensive position, where a second value is assigned to specify how long the unit will have to maintain the position. Way points and defensive position are contact sensitive, for example If a way point is placed on an hostile structure, the unit will attempt to storm the structure when they reach it. If a unit is assigned a defensive position on a friendly artillery piece, they will man it when they are mobilized.

You know... you can smoothen this process by instead of using flags just drag-select all units, then left-click the ground.
How quint that for a "no control sim" you have a SupCom type of waypoint system to force units to your wishes...

 

[Alfryd]

Alfryd, the Artillery installation are countered by shield generators...

Meaning that, what, the game turns into a spending war to see which side can construct and repair their buildings fastest?
-No, no thank you.

The main point of the thread is the warplan and solider recruitment, you seemed to be fine with it. Let's discuss the specifics...

Well, I think that Spidey raises some legitimate concerns, so the main challenge would be ensuring that this feature gels well with majesty's current emphasis on relatively small-scale conflicts, indirect control, and adequate compensation to the heroes.

I'd say you should only permit 2-4 followers per captain (i.e, recruited hero,) and none of them should be worth more than a level 6 hero, or thereabouts, between upgrades, leadership bonuses, and combat experience.

You know... you can smoothen this process by instead of using flags just drag-select all units, then left-click the ground.
How quaint that for a "no control sim" you have a SupCom type of waypoint system to force units to your wishes...

The whole point to the process is that it's not supposed to be smooth. It's supposed to require a lot of forethought, preparation, and advance expense. That's the drawback to being able to specify a precise tactical battleplan and troop composition in this fashion. You need a strong economy and good knowledge of the terrain before this can work. In the majority of situations, freelance heroes are a cheaper and more flexible option.

I would illustrate a few essential differences here:
1. Nobody forces heroes to join the barracks in the first place. And they're all well-paid for the services.
2. Members of the battalion are subject to normal rules for morale- ie, if you send them up against something too tough, they'll break and run.
3. You can't assign finer-scale actions to individual members of the battalion.
4. You can't easily change your mind about orders once they're given. (Unless, perhaps, you send a special herald, or something.)

So, on balance, I don't think they're being 'forced' into service any more than reward flags force them to hunt specific monsters.

Naturally, of course, certain hero classes could be much more inclined to sign up for military service than others. I wouldn't expect to see gnomes or cultists making regular appearances. But Dauros/Agrela players, in particular, would probably be focused on large-scale, late-game steamroller offensives using just this technique.

 

[Hassat Hunter]

Read my quoted part; replace flag with mouse, and you have Generifc RTS 3325735932089572.

I fully expect MFKS2 to have "upkeep" for heroes to counter the stalemate issues you often mention, and improve upon the ecomomic model. It'll probably be called Salary. It wouldn't make heroes too cheap, and will make it alot harder for anyone to properly maintain 100 heroes.

Besides from 1. all of that is present in KOHAN2, a full-fledged RTS. I should say (again); check it out. It's the only RTS I know that somewhat resembles Majesty in it's mechanics.

 

[Alfryd]

Read my quoted part; replace flag with mouse, and you have Generifc RTS 3325735932089572.

That's what you call 'out of context'.

I fully expect MFKS2 to have "upkeep" for heroes to counter the stalemate issues you often mention...

That won't fix the fundamental problem. Cost multipliers for most buildings meant that getting 100 heroes in play was horrifically expensive in the first place. The problem, rather, was that the game had such small numbers of heroes, whose battles took so long to resolve, that keeping them healed, blessed, and fighting indefinitely was a simple proposition, even in the face of 4-1 odds.

Besides from 1. all of that is present in KOHAN2, a full-fledged RTS. I should say (again); check it out. It's the only RTS I know that somewhat resembles Majesty in it's mechanics.

Good. Did it work?

 

[Hassat Hunter]

Then what do you call "pick A, move it to Y. Later at your command move it to X, then tell it to attack Z"?
I have been doing stuff like that for years in Command & Conquer, Age of Empires.
But it has flags! And time constrains.
Ah, you are right... I am so silly. TBS is more similar then. Check Age of Wonders .

I have played little MP, and loads of SP, and sure as hell don't want my heroes' battles to be over in a very fast timeframe. Allowing more heroes wouldn't fix the issue, since than it would just happen on a larger scale (requiring a faster reflex with more clicks perhaps... but that is something that should be left to RTS, not MFKS).

Yes, it did. But obviously it was RTS.

 

[UniversalWolf]

I don't like the idea. There are plenty of RTS games out there with a war focus. Majesty2 doesn't need to be another one. It's a fantasy kingdom sim - sort of a cross between D&D and SimCity. That's what makes it unique.

 

[Nerdfish]

There is a difference between this system and the common control scheme in RTS.

That is commands themselves are substantial things.

For example, if you give a command for some soldiers (whom you are paying out of your treasury) to leave their barrack and run ten laps around the castle, they will be all to happy to do it. at any given time you can give them another command to go back to their barrack and sleep, and since they are right outside the castle, they will be happy to comply.

The situation is very different if you give command for some soldiers to run ten laps around the city. they'd start doing it dutifully all the same (after all they are paid out of your pocket, on a weekly basis). But if you give them a command to stop half way, many different things may happen.

1. The captain, a warrior, decided that the order is fake and send the herald back to the palace.
2. A rogue, who doesn't like the captain, assassinates the herald carrying the order to the captain.
3. the Herald fails to catch up with the captain who likes to whip his men around - instead of running around the city he's making them sprinting around the city.
4. the unit is chasing a group of enemy archers under the command of a ranger into the wilderness so your herald cannot locate them. Later you realize the captain of the enemy unit is someone the warrior commanding those soldiers hate.

You can give your army a general idea of what they should do, but how they do it, or not do it, is up to the captain. Who might decide chase a group of enemy back to one of their outposts, and lay siege to it when all you tell him to do is to run some laps around the city

Here is another situation that might arise, that is outside possibility of normal RTS controls. Say that a group of foot solider lead by an adept is marching when they encounter a hostile unit lead by another adept. the Adept might decide to challenge each other to a duel and the losing captain, and his entire unit, would retreat.

 

[Alfryd]

I have played little MP, and loads of SP, and sure as hell don't want my heroes' battles to be over in a very fast timeframe.

That depends on the circumstances. If you have a level 1 hero vs. another level 1 hero, then the battle should last long enough for you to intervene, without dragging on, literally, for days. The problem was that combat actually took longer and longer as the heroes got to higher levels, and being outnumbered substantially didn't matter much. If you're surrounded by 4 opponents of equal skill with matching equipment, you should be going down in very short order. There's no way to parry that fast. Likewise for dodging arrows.

Yes, it did. But obviously it was RTS.

Ah, but was it a generic RTS?..

Then what do you call "pick A, move it to Y. Later at your command move it to X, then tell it to attack Z"?

You can't do that using Nerdfish's system. You can queue up several orders at the barracks at once, but the troops need to be assembled at the barracks before those orders can be followed (a Call to Arms). Then, once you 'mobilise' the garrison (Move Out), you can't issue new orders without bringing the garrison back to the barracks. (Or possibly sending a herald- which is slow, risky, and unreliable.)

The problem with majesty at present is that it's very, very difficult to pull off subtler tactics- such as sending a raiding party to create a diversion while your main force swoops in from the rear- because the existing set of incentives don't allow for secrecy and don't allow you to restrict those incentives to a specific group of heroes. Things like a code of laws, commissions/contracts, and the barracks are all potential solutions to that problem, so I'm flexible. I just want to discuss the options.

I can certainly understand the position that a barrack/formations/advance control would be too much of deviation from majesty's existing mechanics for players to get used to it. To be honest, I reckon the odds of it's implementation are pretty slim.

But I should mention one area where more direct control would seem mandatory: If the sequel is to feature walls and towers immune to normal types of damage, that means you'll need siege weapons. Siege weapons aren't heroes, but you need to be able to direct them from A to B. Siege weapons also need personnel to man, protect and maintain them in the field, so you've basically got this large mechanical contraption trundling about the map with a complement of soldiers beside it.
Isn't that basically a small army?

I don't like the idea. There are plenty of RTS games out there with a war focus. Majesty2 doesn't need to be another one. It's a fantasy kingdom sim - sort of a cross between D&D and SimCity. That's what makes it unique.

If Paradox and 1C:InoCo want majesty to be a pure-blooded sim, fine. But the developers have apparently spent a lot of time honing and balancing the factions for the sake of deathmatch multiplayer- this was, apparently, their absolute top priority.

And I'm fine with that. A lot of people, including myself, really enjoyed deathmatch multiplayer in majesty- despite it's flaws- and it's a useful direction for the sequel. But it means that majesty 2 WILL, in fact, be a game with a strong focus on RTS-style warfare. In which case, I would hope that majesty's potential for alleviating micro is fully leveraged to permit me to focus instead on large-scale tactical manoeuvres- but if that's going to be realised, I need more tools at my disposal than straightforward bounty flags or after-the-fact support spells. I need more knobs and dials to fiddle with.

I would be equally pleased if Paradox and 1C:InoCo had chosen to emphasise majesty's 'sim' elements, but in that case, I would be skeptical about including direct deathmatch multiplayer at all. The closest that any 'sim' game has gotten to this idea was Emperor:RotMK, and MP didn't work out so well. I imagine, in that case, that things like hero relationships, a powerful economic or environmental model, and advanced AI would be higher priorities. And the game would be primarily focused on single-player.

Both of these courses of development would be great, and I've been trying to include suggestions to cover either possibility, but you cannot easily serve two masters.

 

[Spiderman]

So is Nerdfish's original proposal to hire soldiers but to use flags to gather them and tell them where to go and what to do?

 

[Alfryd]

I think the procedure is as follows:
1. Build a barracks.
2. Set a few options on what kind of troops you'd like (ranged, melee, support, siege, etc.) Recruits should show up over time in exchange for a regular salary (both henchman soldiers and hero captains.)
4. Queue up some orders for the troops to follow (using 'waypoint flags'.)
3. Use Call to Arms to gather up your troops at the barracks, then Move Out to execute. Recruits can quit their employment at any time apart from this.

I'm guessing. If you're talking about offering one-time rewards for each specific directive, I dunno. You *could* model the waypoints as something essentially similar to flags, certainly. Perhaps you'd have a set of flags for every 'mission'- stealth, siege, capture, etc.

 

[unmerged(60143)]

The idea with regular troops could be fun, if it's kept simple, like supporttroops for heroes, where a hero recruit a couple of archers or soldiers, but I'm guessing we'll see parties of heroes only.

Otherwise I agree with the other posters that this seems like a step towards the ordinary rts-formula too much. I don't think they could keep the aspects of the original Majesty and implement all these ideas, which in turn also would require a lot better AI, interface, etc.

The waypointing idea is a great one though, if there are enough restrictions on how to use it.

 

[Hassat Hunter]

That depends on the circumstances.

Nice points. But from my experiences with others in MFKS:MP the fighting lenght wasn't the bottleneck. I could easily sweep armies of Barbarians with a few Lightning Storms. It was that each player had so much money at their exposal. They could easily spend time whacking on each other, if the loser of the fight was unresurectable and expensive to replace, it would greatly speed up things after that.

Ah, but was it a generic RTS?..

No, that's why I like it so much...

If the sequel is to feature walls and towers immune to normal types of damage, that means you'll need siege weapons.

Yeah. It somewhat saddens me it is made for MP, since I don't see it properly working there without being turned into a pseudo-RTS. Having free minded heroes just doesn't seem to correlate with strategically destroying an opponent.
Also, if there were walls and towers that cannot be destroyed by hitting it like MFKS, I would much prefer that they are 'invaded' (heroes enter, kill resistance, than if it is a structure, capture... if a den, leave it empty). If that method is used cleaned out dens could potentially be re-occupied with new inhabitants if you keep your guard down. Another sollution I would like above controllable Siege Weaponry would be to use Beasts that break down those walls. You order their training (or an egg, or kitten, or cub or whatever could be taken by a hero from the wield, making it costless for the Sovereign) and then a willing hero out of his/her own takes it along for the ride. Ofcourse beasts have their own wills too, and it might be more of a nuisance for your hero than a help if not brought in with them as a cub . Altough some like Mountain Lions would not be usefull for walls, Wyrmid/Dragons could, as do Trolls and similar beings. Just my 2 cents.

 

[UniversalWolf]

But the developers have apparently spent a lot of time honing and balancing the factions for the sake of deathmatch multiplayer- this was, apparently, their absolute top priority.

Really? Yuck. Sounds like a very bad sign to me. Make it a wargame and that's even further in the wrong direction.

Combined with the move to 3D that's two strikes.

Hopefully I'm wrong.

 

[Spiderman]

I think the procedure is as follows:
1. Build a barracks.
2. Set a few options on what kind of troops you'd like (ranged, melee, support, siege, etc.) Recruits should show up over time in exchange for a regular salary (both henchman soldiers and hero captains.)
4. Queue up some orders for the troops to follow (using 'waypoint flags'.)
3. Use Call to Arms to gather up your troops at the barracks, then Move Out to execute. Recruits can quit their employment at any time apart from this.

I'm guessing. If you're talking about offering one-time rewards for each specific directive, I dunno. You *could* model the waypoints as something essentially similar to flags, certainly. Perhaps you'd have a set of flags for every 'mission'- stealth, siege, capture, etc.

Well, this sounds reasonable then. I'm still against the idea of soldiers really, but if they get in the game, this is the way to go.

 

[Alfryd]

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1581

And Shamus Young strikes again. ...Okay, I'm done for now. This is a perfect example of the problems that majesty could absolutely destroy and banish.

But babysitting my virtuous yet sadly misguided Blue warriors takes me away from the part of the game I enjoy doing: Optimizing the performance of my war machine. I can stay home and tune the machine to bolster its output, thus leaving my soldiers think for themselves. Whatever gains I made by increasing production will be quickly squandered by their haphazard tactics. I’ll end up writing a bunch of letters to the Blue Wives of the Blue soldiers, letting them know that their husbands perished in a heroic but utterly stupid way while attempting to secure a better, safer future for Blue-clothed people everywhere. If I constantly guide them in battle, my base will languish and I’ll have less soldiers to work with.

This is not a problem I have with Starcraft, this is a problem I have with the genre. It’s not the fault of the game that I find the inefficiencies of combat displeasing. Combat is 60% of the game, and I’m just not rewarded by combat. Maybe the fun I’m looking for is better found in another genre. Maybe the game I want to play doesn’t even exist.