|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Mar 7, 2017 17:08:20 GMT
Option 1: (Courtesy of Tristan)
All castles provide bonus in battle but a castle can be neutralized prior to battle by allocating troops equal to:
Active Castle: Units Req.= Castle Level x2 + Units Inside Castle Garrison Castle: Units Req.= Castle Level + Units Inside Castle
Compensation offered to castle holders: Ability to scream ohh no, and remove their castles, finished or otherwise, and get the resources invested refunded or diverted into other building projects.
Option 2: (Courtesy of Linde(GM))
Standard castles doesn't provide bonus to field battles.
New building
Grand Castle: Base cost 80GB Upkeep: 0,5GB Effect: Ability to affect field battles unhindered in the province of the Grand Castle Special, you must upgrade a standard castle into a grand castle, so this building can't be built in provinces with no castle. Upgrading the level of an existing grand castle incur a 50% increase in cost. (so each upgrade of a grand castle will cost 30GB base instead of 20)
The two original castles: Camelot & Dumonia, who were forced to start with castles would then have started with Grand Castles, but others should be upgraded first.
Compensation offered to other castle holders: Ability to scream ohh no, and remove their castles, finished or otherwise, and get the resources invested refunded or diverted into other building projects.
Option 3: Don't change the rules for castles
|
|
|
Post by NSE (Lydia of Caerleon) on Mar 7, 2017 17:13:08 GMT
Given we're fairly well into the game, changing castles now seems like it would carry heavy consequences for prior cost-benefit analysis. Decisions made earlier to build or not to build would likely have been different and significant resources wasted on a decision which now is/is not desirable.
Basically everyone understood the value of a castle, so if they chose to attack an area with one, they knew what they were in for. All of the reasons presented so far in the other thread seem to revolve around Gawant/Nemeth, which leads to a thought people may wish to retry such actions and are wanting to make their new effort much more favorable.
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Mar 7, 2017 17:14:59 GMT
So the compensation offered in option 2 will also be offered in option 1.
|
|
|
Post by Maelgwyn ap Cadwgan (TOG) on Mar 7, 2017 17:22:42 GMT
I always assumed that if the castle was invested in the way of the current rules the bonus in battle would be negated. Unless the units investing would then be withdrawn and used in battle.
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Mar 7, 2017 17:25:20 GMT
Since Castles can be destroyed a Grand Castle seem very expensive.
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Mar 7, 2017 17:26:55 GMT
I always assumed that if the castle was invested in the way of the current rules the bonus in battle would be negated. Unless the units investing would then be withdrawn and used in battle. That is option 1 you are describing. Others may have thought we already played with option 1 as well.
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Mar 7, 2017 17:27:48 GMT
Since Castles can be destroyed a Grand Castle seem very expensive. All buildings and holdings can be destroyed. Even money you don't spend could be stolen.
|
|
|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Mar 7, 2017 21:44:45 GMT
Given we're fairly well into the game, changing castles now seems like it would carry heavy consequences for prior cost-benefit analysis. Decisions made earlier to build or not to build would likely have been different and significant resources wasted on a decision which now is/is not desirable. Basically everyone understood the value of a castle, so if they chose to attack an area with one, they knew what they were in for. All of the reasons presented so far in the other thread seem to revolve around Gawant/Nemeth, which leads to a thought people may wish to retry such actions and are wanting to make their new effort much more favorable. It impacts 2 people, who are being offered equivalent compensation, so the suggestion that there are "heavy consequences" is male bovine faecal matter. Personally I still think castles are worth it (particularly if option 1 is adopted).
Your suggestion that everyone understood the value of a castle is fallacious. Those people familiar with the system might understand the value of the impact of castle, or those with extreme levels of excel & mathematical understanding might be able to unravel the formulas, but I doubt that makes up the majority of the player base. I personally had no experience with the EiA system that was used as the underlying guideline for the battle system and I am still getting my head around aspects of the system.
I mentioned the Gawant/Nemeth situation to highlight the absurd impact that a castle can have on a battle. I suggest you put in the forces present at the battle into the spreadsheet, the same dice rolls, then remove the castle and see how many units you have take away from Gawant et al. before they lose (it's 9 units). A castle should have impact, the bigger the castle the bigger the impact, but a level 1 castle should not have a 9 unit impact on a battle.
That is the reason that my preference is for option 1. In this case a level 1 castle has a 2 unit impact, and allows the castle owner to (effectively) trade away units at a 1:1 for one rate (i.e. I put a levy in the castle, the opposition has to put another unit in the investing force).
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Mar 7, 2017 21:54:12 GMT
That battle largely ended like that because Gawant and friends roll 6 in round 1 when the damage table used was 1-2 while, while Nemeth rolled 6 when on round 2 of the fight the damage table was 1-4(which is about twice as damaging morale wise), if Nemeth had roll 6 and you 1 in round 1 and you had rolled 6 in round 2 and Nemeth had rolled 1, Gawant would have won.
The Castle annihilated the bonus from your trait advantage from Cavalry and Heavy units, while the tactics chosen actually eliminated the remaining bonus from the castle(reducing the kill side of the table) for round 1 and 2.
|
|
|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Mar 7, 2017 21:54:51 GMT
As an addendum I don't think Linde should have put this to a vote, I think he should have chosen the option that best matched his intent with castles, put it out for feedback, amended as required and then implemented.
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Mar 7, 2017 22:41:30 GMT
Well, I will choose myself, I just want your opinion. This is a dictatorship after all, not a democracy.
|
|
|
Post by NSE (Lydia of Caerleon) on Mar 7, 2017 22:57:21 GMT
That battle largely ended like that because Gawant and friends roll 6 in round 1 when the damage table used was 1-2 while, while Nemeth rolled 6 when on round 2 of the fight the damage table was 1-4(which is about twice as damaging morale wise), if Nemeth had roll 6 and you 1 in round 1 and you had rolled 6 in round 2 and Nemeth had rolled 1, Gawant would have won. The Castle annihilated the bonus from your trait advantage from Cavalry and Heavy units, while the tactics chosen actually eliminated the remaining bonus from the castle(reducing the kill side of the table) for round 1 and 2. To me this sounds like the castle wasn't the cause of the loss. It was extreme rolls by both participants, and had they been reversed Nemeth & the badgers would have lost the field, which sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Mar 7, 2017 23:08:10 GMT
In the battle in Nemeth even with the Castle Gawant was actually at a slight advantage. The reason they did not return for another round was that Nemeth gained access to the remaining units from the west garrison.
|
|
|
Post by Alined on Mar 7, 2017 23:48:04 GMT
As much as I don't want to see castles affect field battles, since it seems senseless to me in principle, it's not as much as I don't want to see castles disappear and get replaced/refunded.
If it matters, I was already planning to build a castle purely for its ability to control territory, not for any utility it might have had in battle, and neither of these proposals would change that.
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Mar 8, 2017 0:00:40 GMT
Thank you for your input, it was greatly appreciated.
|
|