|
Post by crocoduck on Feb 12, 2013 16:09:22 GMT -5
No I understood what you were suggesting, I was just suggesting an alternative.
And yea I see what you mean about the running out of places to expand. But if we have as many sectors as we had in this game, running out of places to expand isn't that big an issue.
As for geography, there's a difference between being random and being calculated unique. Like I mentioned, quadrants can be different in their geography, so long as it's accounted for. For example, a quadrant that has an uber ability should have a capitol closer to another quadrant than most, and, idk, have more or less sectors? Whichever would be a drawback for them.
|
|
|
Post by Hitotsumami on Feb 12, 2013 16:10:46 GMT -5
Just to sum up what I think would work good for attacking:
The attacker gets to roll 1 dice, plus however many sectors you own bordering you. The Defender gets 1 roll for defense, plus any sectors it owns bordering it.
If the defender has the highest roll, he defends his sector. If the Attacker hast he highest roll, he takes over that sector, and then also takes over any surrounding sectors equal to the number of his lowest dice roll.
How does this sound?
|
|
|
Post by Shark a' Pult on Feb 12, 2013 16:11:22 GMT -5
As for the leader's, I just have a bad feeling it'll be too much because we'll have quadrant abilities, ults, special sectors, random events and leaders with special abilities. Then remove special sectors or random events. Ults are a once a game thing, unless we change that (I think we should), and quadrant abilities are always on.
|
|
|
Post by Shark a' Pult on Feb 12, 2013 16:14:00 GMT -5
Just to sum up what I think would work good for attacking: The attacker gets to roll 1 dice, plus however many sectors you own border you. The Defender gets 1 roll for defense, plus any sectors it owns bordering it. The the defender has the highest roll, he defends his sector. If the Attacker hast he highest roll, he takes over that sector, and then also takes over any surrounding sectors equal to the number of his lowest dice roll. How does this sound? That sounds like it would just be a situation of "Who can get the most dice rolls, to get a 6", under the situation that already, defender always wins on a 6. What happens if the attacker has 6 sectors attacking, rolls six 6s, but the defender rolls one 6. Is that fair?
|
|
|
Post by crocoduck on Feb 12, 2013 16:14:23 GMT -5
I like that, since it even works logic wise. If you have more reinforcement sectors around you, you get more defense. The only thing is that if we do the highest roll method, it's difficult for attackers. For example, when we first start off and we have our very first attack, odds are the defending sector's going to be totally surrounded by friendly sectors. Since we're using the highest roll option, it makes it very likely they'll defend. Hence the idea of having a -1 or -2 roll, but that doesn't quite work since it's not the same system.
We could just do a -1 anyways. So if a defending sector has 3 surrounding sectors, instead of the usual 4 rolls it would get, it would only get 3. and if it had no surrounding sectors, it would just get 1 roll (we'd put a floor so that nobody was instantly taken over.)
|
|
|
Post by crocoduck on Feb 12, 2013 16:16:25 GMT -5
As for the leader's, I just have a bad feeling it'll be too much because we'll have quadrant abilities, ults, special sectors, random events and leaders with special abilities. Then remove special sectors or random events. Ults are a once a game thing, unless we change that (I think we should), and quadrant abilities are always on. I'm ok with that, in regards to removing random events. But I do like special sectors, for they provide a great deal of strategy potential. As for ults, i guess we can make them be able to used more than once, but they definitely still either need a maximum use or a huge cool-down between uses.
|
|
|
Post by Hitotsumami on Feb 12, 2013 16:17:36 GMT -5
Shark brings up a good point. Maybe attacking should be how it is now, with the addition of taking over additional sectors based on the attackers lowest dice roll.
Especially if we're going to have leaders and other special events, doing things like -1 or -2 dice roll (which that itself depends on other things) might just get too complicated.
|
|
|
Post by Shark a' Pult on Feb 12, 2013 16:26:56 GMT -5
The only reason I was suggesting the -1 to number of dice thing, was because it was my idea to be able to allocate rolls. The -1 would come into effect, because the defender has to hope they roll high enough to deal with the total numbers that the attackers throw. I'll give an example; 4 sectors attack 1.
Attacker;
Defender (-1 in effect);
|
|
|
Post by Shark a' Pult on Feb 12, 2013 16:31:27 GMT -5
So based on the rolls above, the defender would allocate their rolls.
Obviously the 6 goes to stop the 5, then the 5 goes to stop the 2, but then there are 2 rolls left. They are both 1's however, and 1+1 = 2, which is still not enough to beat the remaining 3 that the defender has.
So in this case the defender won, however with an extra dice, it is geared more towards the attacker on average. Offset by the "Ties = Defender win" rule.
---
As for ults, I believe they should be used more than once (in case you fuck up with yours like I did), but they have an immense cooldown. Something like 20 or 30 turns, or something.
An alternative method, which originally was my idea for leaders, was that you get another ult, for every X amount of enemy territory you take. So assume that you manage to take say, 20 enemy sectors. Then your ult would recharge.
Either way, I think ults shouldn't be a one use thing, but I agree they should be extremely rare.
|
|
|
Post by Shark a' Pult on Feb 12, 2013 17:35:33 GMT -5
Here's my ideas for Leaders;
- Each player can only have (2) leaders at any time*
- It is through the leaders, that players make their actions, meaning 2 actions per turn (1 per leader)
- As a flat bonus, leaders get +1 to their rolls**
- A leader also has a minor special ability, called a Talent, which ideally affects only them or the sector they are in, rather than a nation-wide bonus
- A leader can choose from 3 actions a turn; 1. Expand, 2. Attack, 3. Build***
- If a leader dies, a new leader immediately spawns at the player's capitol
- On friendly land, leaders move 3 spaces, 2 if the friendly land is outside the player's quadrant
- If a leader dies, there could be some kind of small compensation for the player who killed the leader (perhaps a temporary bonus to their leader, if their leader actually killed the enemy leader)
- Leaders die under two circumstance; 1. If they are on a territory that gets surrounded by the enemy, and then taken, 2. If while defending, the defender leader rolls a 1 and the attacking leader rolls a 6
- If a player wants to make an action that isn't through a leader (such as move or expand at some distant province), they can do so. However, they won't be getting the bonus leaders bring, and they will have to forfeit the action of their leader(s) that turn
- Leaders cannot occupy the same sector (except the capitol)
~~~
* There could be some way of getting another leader or so, perhaps if a player defeats another player, then they'd get another leader. Still though, I think just only 2 ever is easy to stick to.
** Conventionally, the standard bonus for a leader is +1 to rolls, however a player can forgo this bonus if they want their leader to have a more powerful talent.
*** By sacrificing a turn, similar to a travel-by-sea action, a player can have their leader "Build" a castle. Castles are stationary defenses, that provide a +1 bonus to defensive rolls. The stipulation is that castles cannot be adjacent (to prevent someone from making a wall of castles). As well, it might be worth adding that castles are destroyed when an enemy takes a sector the castle is in. Also maybe some limit on castles, but the overall idea sounds neat to me.
|
|
|
Post by Kuro on Feb 12, 2013 17:40:23 GMT -5
Concerning the world events such as dragon attacks, I don't like the idea of having a random thing mess up your careful strategy and maneuvers since the strategy is one of the main parts of the game. However, the idea of having such events be triggered by players seems interesting. This could work by perhaps having certain sectors trigger world events if taken over, so the players would have to strategize around the event. However, while the players will know which sectors will trigger world events, they do not know which events will be triggered by which sector. All you will know is that if you take over that sector, something will happen. Thus, it would be a risk to take the sector since you don't know whether or not its effects will help or be worth it. See what I did there? Risk? Ah....
I like the sector/quadrant stuff as it is now. Making it uniform removes a huge part of the strategy of choosing which sectors are more valuable given the number of sectors that they border. It should definitely be random/sporadic.
I like everything Shark outlined about the leader idea.
With Ult recharges, I think it should be off of turn counting so that a nation that is doing poorly and could really use an Ult will get an Ult, instead of only having the successfully conquering nations get Ults.
I love the idea of having what dice the attacker rolled determine how much land they get. This makes higher dice rolls more powerful and makes the game go by more smoothly and has a greater effect on the map. I think the number of additional sectors you get should be the attacker's highest dice - the defender's highest dice. So, if the attacker's highest dice was a 6 and the defender's highest dice was a 3, then the attacker would get the contested sector and three more sectors bordering it. I like this idea because it would be rather dissappointing to roll a 6 but only get one additional sector because you happened to also roll a 1, which is what would happen by the "lowest roll = sector" rule.
With attacking itself, I like Shark's idea of having the numbers be allocated. I at least want to avoid a situation where, like Shark said, I roll four 6's in an attack but fail because the defender rolled one 6, which would make using multiple sectors to gang up on one meaningless. Having the defender have -1 dice is good, since it makes the tactic of ganging up on sectors actually be in the advantage of the person who manages to be able to use multiple sectors to attack a sector.
|
|
|
Post by Hitotsumami on Feb 12, 2013 20:33:01 GMT -5
@ Kuro
In response to the idea of gaining additional sectors based on dice roll. You said " I think the number of additional sectors you get should be the attacker's highest dice - the defender's highest dice."
Do you mean the difference between the two? Like if my roll was 6 and theirs was 4, I would gain two 2 additional sectors. I kinda think this is unnecessary, as most of the time your lowest roll won't be something terrible like a 1 and usually the difference between your highest roll and the enemies is no more than 3, most of the time.
Might as well just go with attacker's lowest roll, to keep things simple. Of course if you guys want to go with what Kuro suggested, that's fine too.
And so far, seems everyone is liking the allocating defense to improve the attacking mechanic. Which I agree with.
|
|
|
Post by Hitotsumami on Feb 16, 2013 16:04:58 GMT -5
[roll]
|
|