|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on May 13, 2016 10:32:09 GMT
As I see it we have several options:
1) Leave the rules as is, so recovering takes a long time.
2) Institute the rules for status (Active, Garision & Reserve) and change recovery to grant 1/5th of the maximum HP (round down)
3) Only institute the rules for status, but leave recovery as is
4) Only change the rules for recovery, but keep the rules for unit status out.
Changing rules for recovery will have to also have an effect on various cure army spells.
The reason for having status of units is: Easier to keep a defensive force. The reason for not having status of units is: Less bookkeeping(Mostly for players)
The reason to have slow recovery is: Keeping cost of war high The reason to have faster recovery is: Keeping recovery actions from being next to pointless.
I am always a strong advocate for simplifications in bookkeeping. But if we make units recover more quickly I feel it would also make sense to allow units to be garrisoned to defend at a lower cost. This will in effect make the cost of an offensive war higher, as the defender can easier manage to keep a larger defensive army. And put the worries I had to rest that war would become the cheapest way to settle a conflict.
For that reason I would like either both changes or no changes.
Points and thoughts are welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Maelgwyn ap Cadwgan (TOG) on May 13, 2016 11:01:28 GMT
In my opinion the recovery as it is now is to slow, and the cure spell is too expensive for its effect. I would go with instituting both rules changes. In this way, as you pointed out yourself, the defender will still be able to maintain a decent defensive army. At the same time if recovery is a bit faster it will not feel like one war in 10 years is all you can ever manage. (Which also counts for the a more pacifist player.)
|
|
|
Post by Godfred Thraw BayardsKing(GT) on May 13, 2016 11:05:49 GMT
If i have the mike, i would said that i would'nt add too work for Linde he is yet overbooked...
I am against the garrison status : it's freeze all the games ... (tell the ancestror here) that help the defenses...
And i found personnaly that magic is too powered to help the recover...
I think that the naturaly recover or action recover will be more effective that little poor magic ... that don't create more mens...
i think 1 year to recover without action will be good... upkeep help to that...
And recover by action would help to 20 or 25% of the total max HP ...
|
|
|
Post by Eastern Traders on May 13, 2016 11:15:13 GMT
I have to agree wit bayard i fear that cheaper defensive forces could encourge people to just dig in and be passive.
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on May 13, 2016 11:25:32 GMT
Potentially limit garrison status capacity to province level or castle capacity.
|
|
|
Post by Eastern Traders on May 13, 2016 11:29:36 GMT
Castle maybe but i am still strongly against.
|
|
|
Post by Godfred Thraw BayardsKing(GT) on May 13, 2016 11:30:15 GMT
it's complex and just give advantage at defender ... for the animation it's bad
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on May 13, 2016 12:00:14 GMT
True it makes it harder to surprise someone, but it also lowers the relative strength of defensive power of levies, and as such makes it harder to counter people with a flash coalition.
But i could see castle's upkeep return if they allowed units to be garrison status'ed in them.
|
|
|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on May 13, 2016 12:22:29 GMT
I don't want to see Reserve/Garrison/Active status. Too much book keeping.
That said I like recover being 25% of total HP as I proposed.
Remembering the restrictions on recovery (unit can take no action, has a DDC so it can fail) I don't think its overpowered.
|
|
|
Post by X-Nemeth on May 13, 2016 13:04:52 GMT
I am against the added bookkeeping of status. To begin with I was for status, but with the current economy, i think the cost of units are, if not in a good place, then in a place that increases the importance of choices. Also bookkeeping is bad In regards to recovery, I think it takes way too long for any and all units. Something between one and two years for full recovery would be nice. So i suggest that there is always 1hp recovered each turn, and that you can increase this to 3 if you use the recover action. That way you can replenish a unit somewhere between one or two years depending on the unit type. It also means it is more of a choice to recover. You could also then add the "no recovery at all" to the list of bad stuff that can happen if you dont pay your men.
|
|
|
Post by Eastern Traders on May 13, 2016 13:46:28 GMT
lol we have 10 votes and 7 voters
|
|
|
Post by X-Nemeth on May 13, 2016 13:47:29 GMT
You can leave two choices (I only left one)
|
|
|
Post by Godfred Thraw BayardsKing(GT) on May 13, 2016 14:11:16 GMT
Idea from Danemark... low recover ... lad with no lot of men .... in France The problem has always been how to paid more, not found the men to send at butchery
|
|
|
Post by Maelgwyn ap Cadwgan (TOG) on May 13, 2016 17:07:14 GMT
The issye is that with one or three hp recovery it takes easily takes knights and guard decade(s) to recover if they are at one fourth strength.
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on May 13, 2016 17:35:49 GMT
Maybe recovery should simply be based on max health? Maybe 10% hits points round up?
|
|