Limited armies and strat movement

This is a tough one. Should we limit armies so people just don’t sit and build armies that are impossible to defeat? We have seen villages that had 10,000 men in them. It’s ridiculous.

I am open to the idea of limited armies. It would open up a chance for noobs to make a name for themselves as mercenaries. If we had 1000 man limit on armies, you’d need a lot more commanders… and there are a lot of people who would be happy to lead without the commitment of being in a faction… I think.

I think armies’ wages should be based on their numbers, as it was, but also by their gear: So a 1000 man lightly armed army should cost the same as 100 shiny. This might lead to small, fast well armed caravans instead of the 3000 shiny man army carrying 4000 goods.

But what about cities and castles, you ask? I think cities and castles should have minimum garrisons too. I would say 1000 for cities, 500 for castles and zero for villages. Cuz really? Where does the garrison stay in a village? 0 garrisons for villages would mean more field battles, which is good. If a commander wants to sit in a village with soldiers, then fine, but otherwise just protect your lands by being vigilant (check below for strat movement- not expecting you to stay up 24/7 watching your borders).

I like being able to switch pop to soldiers and vice versa. But I think population size should affect SD. You grab your citizens to be soldiers, you lose SD aka money. But I also would suggest separating garrisons from population. Garrisons should be used to defend the walls, much like Warband single player sieges. Just the wall, the gatehouse and close areas.

BUT… then the civil militia can fight. This would be a TDM in the streets. Attackers spawn in the gatehouse, and the civilians spawn in random houses etc. They recap the gatehouse, game over for the attackers. But the attackers push for the keep. Should the civil militia hold off the intruders, the battle continues the next day- with the chance of reinforcements.

Oh, and speaking of reinforcements, could we separate armies? Instead of giving away all your crap to your buddy, could you just sign your own mercs and fight beside them? In which you help your ally, but you have your own spawn point, and any losses your mercs take are yours and yours alone… and their losses are theirs’ and theirs’ alone. AND imagine this… if one commander loses his spawn point the other commander could choose to continue fighting or retreat… retreat meaning any ticks and gear not on the field can be saved- none of that all or nothing BS WB strat had.

Um, while I’m going on and on, it could even be more interesting if two or three armies joined to attack and they had their own spawn points due to where they entered the map… cool, but once again, i have no idea how much work that would be.

Oh, and strat movement. I hate it when I set my alarm to 3 am to move my guy into a blockaded city just to find out someone else had set their alarm too and intercepted me. Could we figure out a way that everyone inputs their moves and then it is all calculated after? Kinda like Diplomacy (which I sadly never played). There are a lot of difficulties with this of course. It would be too hard to intercept people if you put your movements 10 hours before it was time. But we could limit movement to prime time, with the ability to set your own movements before primetime. So you could send your caravan to Narra at 7 am PST after your weird work shift and go to sleep and hope it is safe. BUT most people have normal hours and cell phones. You can check your movement on your pee break… Oh, but if we only have a 4 hour window to watch your army move that means your armies will have to move 8X faster… I am ok with that lol.


wheres the TLDR

1 Like

Agree on potential limitations, disagree on numbers.

I’m not one for hard caps as much as I am with making things difficult.

C-RPG made high numbers difficult by implementing a massive cost increase at X level of units, do the same and you won’t have a problem with villages of 20,000 people (You have to apply that cost to garrisons as well ofc)

Numbers wise I think villages should be allowed to have a garrison, otherwise you’re literally just removing them from the game, and they might as well not exist. If a person can just walk in and instantly take over your village you’ll just be playing a game of village tug of war endlessly until the end of time.

1 Like

Assuming, 200 tickets battle are 100 vs 100. It would make sense to limit the number of players for low tickets battles.

But I think it is important to limit the army size of a single player. That way, you need to synchronize with your clan to coordinate a large scale attack. To ease that, we’ll implement a way to follow other players and join a nearby battle.

Different topics I believe :slight_smile:

Limiting players to joining a battle is a slippery slope. You could do it so people with a 2000 man army not get swamped simply because they did not have anyone sign for their defence or attack. you could make it so the Defence has less defenders due to ratio of ticks. I don’t know how I feel about that.

Army sizes are kinda dependent on how many people play. At the very beginning of strategus, there were enough people for 100 vs 100… of course it got laggy as people dropped weapons, and horses started to accumulate.

So, 1000 vs 1000 with 200 mercs would be 5 rounds, or 30 minutes
1000 vs 1000 with 100 mercs would be 10 rounds, or one hour
1000 vs 1000 with 50 mercs would be 20 rounds, or two hours

In single death battles, I’m thinking 100 vs 100 mercs is possible since lag will go down instead of up as people die. But we don’t don’t know if we will have that many players.

But… if we have a lot more players, theoretically we should have a lot more armies, which potentially means a lot more battles. With a 2000 limit and 50 vs 50, battles will last 2 hours, and there can be 2 battles a night. If we do get enough players for 100 vs 100, battles will last 1 hour, but then we can have up to 4 battles a night.

BUT… whatever happens, don’t make the loser lose all his unused ticks and gear if the timer runs out. Capturing flags is considered a route, but nothing was more annoying than losing everything even though you fought just as well as the other sided.

@Archibot Oops- can’t edit my posts for you TL;DR

Find a limit for army and garrison size so people don’t just stockpile but actually fight.
Garrison and population are separated- Garrison for the walls, and militia for the keep
Turn population into soldiers, but SD is based on population, so you could lose money
When two allied armies attack at once, they keep their ticks and gear separate.
Have strat movements only happen during primetime (you can set the path, but it won’t take effect til primetime.

People will find ways to stockpile and not fight if they want. Also if you restrict it too much and you’d see smaller groups not being able to stockpile, a bigger group could easily wipe them away due to such restrictions.

I’m also working from the assumption we’ll have over 100+ players NA again.

If like in the solo you have a limited numbers of tickets by players, garrison and a limited numbers of militia stockpiling will be limited even dangerous in case of a 100% loot on merchandise (unused stuff).
Logistics and commerce would also be a rewarding because of the flow of tickets and stuff.

You should have unlimited troops and garrisons but create a group of sea raiders who grow exponentially every time they die and always attack the fief with the largest garrison until they eventually overwhelm the whole map and that’s the end of the strat round.

You can call them the white walkers.

We were thinking about a “neutral zone” with a capital with overwhelming defences forces (like too much tickets and all the stuff in infinit amount) to be the end goal of the game. the clan who capture the capital of a TimeZone win the Calradia War and a new game start with a blank map and blank parties.

not a terrible idea for an event tbh

Not an event, a late game objective with your clan name (and characters name at the time) on the hall of fame of the Great Unification War of Calradia.
I think that a late game objective is needed, that way, Stategus could be reseted and new player would have less trouble finding there place in this new univers.

I was replying to archi’s idea lol. Wouldn’t be a terrible October event.

My bad i did’nt saw the little icone for the reply :slight_smile:

1 Like

What if your max army size was based on your renown? At least then we know the people who have the large armies are the ones who will be willing to use it. Then we probably won’t see 3000 shiny man caravans (I think caravans should be small and fast, and if you are trading in enemy territories you’ll be taking a big risk).

How would you assess renown in this setup?
Renown is quite simple in single player because it’s just a matter of winning battles and tournament. In a MP setup it would be a lot more complicated to assess renown of the players.