|
Post by Maelgwyn ap Cadwgan (TOG) on Jul 23, 2018 10:41:37 GMT
That there is a higher cost to maintaining experienced troops at their level does seem logical though. Quality equipment or better maintenance, better continuous training, increased wages/pensions to keep the troops on or attract skilled replacements, or see to older (possibly retired) veterans train newer recruits etc
|
|
|
Post by ET (Kerberos) on Jul 23, 2018 13:39:39 GMT
That there is a higher cost to maintaining experienced troops at their level does seem logical though. Quality equipment or better maintenance, better continuous training, increased wages/pensions to keep the troops on or attract skilled replacements, or see to older (possibly retired) veterans train newer recruits etc Well yes, it makes sense that there’s an extra cost, but the cost has to line up with the bonuses. Before with elites getting double damage they did, but now they don’t. At veteran level you get extra HP, damage and morale for free, at elite you get those same bonuses + movement (which is generally irrelevant, not always, but generally) which costs you 0,5 GB/turn. I think arguably keeping your units at veteran might be better than training them to elite. Meanwhile at crack you get hp, damage, morale and the actually combat relevant bonus of an extra trait, but for free. So as I see it there are several options. 1) Each xp level costs extra (possibly starting at veteran) this makes the most sense, but also takes the most administration. 2) Tag the prize increase to crack level and the bonus trait, where you actually get the combat relevant bonus. 3) No prize increases at all, which makes little sense, but has the least administration. 4) Keeping the prize increase at elite (and again at legendary) which IMO is the worst option, because there is no real logic behind it that I can see either narrative or game mechanical.
|
|
|
Post by ET (Kerberos) on Jul 23, 2018 14:18:02 GMT
Also an unrelated though, most traits are countered byu getting some units with the same trait so you deny the enemy the advantage and if you get enough seize it yourself. Problem is that for RP reasons almost no player realm can use undeads and the exception (looking at you Bayard) probably can't for political reasons. That means that there's no counter. Any NPC relam cabable of using undead automatically get the advantage by fielding jsut one undead and there's no counter avaliable to PC realms. The most story logical counter would be a "holy" trait, indicating a presence of paladins and similar characters in certain temple units/summons. Another option would be to say than defensive units worked as a counter trait to undead. Defensive IMo could us ea buff and it sort of makes sense that defensive units can keep undeads at bay. The trait might be purely for countering the undead trait (meaning you can negate the undead trait, but not get a bonus yourself if you holy/defensive units outnumber the udneads by a factor 2).
ETA:Some realm spell that counter the undead trait would also be an option.
|
|
|
Post by Maelgwyn ap Cadwgan (TOG) on Jul 23, 2018 16:24:22 GMT
On the other hand, taking in account all undead (and our enemy from beyond the veil) have is said trait. One has to be careful to not range them out beyond consequence. If you are to develop a specific counter to undead rulewise I'd say a Holy trait that needs special research and prerequisites and/or Realm Magic.
Defensive could use a buff but mixing it in with this seems not quite sensible. There are also quite a few (cheap) options to get Defensive units out there.
Now, back to the undead thing there are specific counters to undead already. Arcane and Divine both has their own.* And considering undead are normally summoned by magic as well it makes sense to counter it that way.
Honestly with the damage changes I do not think Undead as a trait actually needs a spécific counter.
*Ps: We should coördinate ingame on this.
|
|
|
Post by Commodore Victor (SWT) on Jul 23, 2018 18:25:05 GMT
I imagine this will have some impacts on ships, unless ships remain unchanged?
I do think this will have a potentially high impacts on naval transportation, but I'm not sure what exactly.
|
|
|
Post by Turn Processing Assistant on Aug 24, 2018 1:48:30 GMT
To update everyone. There has been a change in the way naval combat is allocated.
Previous: Hits where allocated at the discretion of the player.
New: Hits are allocated randomly, with the chance of a hit being taken on a ship proportional to it's current HP.
|
|
|
Post by Tir Moreth on Aug 24, 2018 14:17:00 GMT
This might be a stupid question, but how long does it take to build a ship?
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Aug 24, 2018 15:34:01 GMT
A ship takes 10GB to build and can in a turn progress by 3 GB for 3 GB or 5 GB for 6 GB. So it can take along time if built slowly, or a couple of turns if you want them fast. You can just "aquire" the ships merchants use for trade, with the Raise levy action subtype called a leidang it will get you ships quickly and little monetary upfront cost, but trade will suffer, local business will slow down and the merchants will likely hold a grudge against you.
Commission Ship [Military; Court, Free] You order the construction of a new military vessel. This action is not normally used for the building of smaller ships and merchantmen; such ships are considered part of province and holding levels (trade holdings in particular). Type: Military – Military actions are normally Court actions, except when used in conjunction with wage war in which case they are Free actions. Court – To start building; Free – Once building has commenced, it is a free action to continue building. Cost: Table 5-5: Anuirean Shipbuilding shows the build cost for the most common ship types used in Anuire. If you try to build a ship in a province with a level lower than the minimum requirement, the cost of the ship is increased by 50% for each province level you are short (and only one ship can be under construction in that province at any one time). Difficulty: Table 5-5: Anuirean Shipbuilding shows the Base DDC for the most common ship types used in Anuire. Special – DDC increases by 5 if construction of the ship is hurried (see Fortify action). Modifiers: Advantage [Guild]; Court; Prosperity; Stability; Special – You gain a +5 bonus to the DAC to continue building. Influence: Yes – You can use influence. Restrictions: You may take 10, but you may not take 20. Check: The building proceeds smoothly; building at a fixed rate of 3GBs (RoE PbeM default) or a variable rate of 1d6 GBs that turn. The check must be repeated each turn until the ship is completed. Hurried construction (see Fortify action) is possible. 86 Failure: Work is halted, but 1GB is still expended. Note that you may voluntarily halt the work for one or more turns, but this count as a failure. Each failed check imposes a cumulative –2 penalty to the DAC. Failing several checks in a row might force you to scrap the ship and start over. Retry: Work can continue on a successful check on a later turn. The accumulated penalty to the DAC for failing checks is canceled.
|
|
|
Post by Maelgwyn ap Cadwgan (TOG) on Aug 26, 2018 19:35:17 GMT
As a bonus hint, having a MOS of 10 or more on the construction dice check might increase your actual progress by more than the invested amount, or give other benefits.
For example, several turns ago a TOG ship that was being constructed progressed 4GB with 3 GB actually invested, while this turn a ship was launched with +1 starting XP. Both were the result of a succes on the check of more than 10. The same principle applies for construction. This is how seeking a high stability and court, and having treaties with the owners of the required holdings can have an important return.
|
|
|
Post by Nav (GM) on Feb 5, 2019 20:53:14 GMT
An update: If you want to give someone else the ability to muster units using your holdings, you will have to use a Recognition ceremony of Investiture to recognize them as the rightful ruler of those holdings. The men of manor holdings, in particular, have spent decades learning to fight for their land, and have no interest in being sold.
Any existing agreements of this type will be assumed to have been agreements to allow the recipient to muster with their own holdings in the lands of the one granting these rights.
|
|