campaing problem, the same of SoC?

Sugacapra · Post by **Sugacapra** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 8:22 am

hi there,
i'm reading all i find of this marvelous campaign, and i hope that my fear was only a "bad vision" of my bursted brain...

At the end SoC presented all his bug in the concept that anyone can post a battle (usually a win) and there are an unlimited number of win "postable" in every site.

This can bring the game in a unfluffy method (or WAACy as Kala said) and this can put the risk that someone else see and pointed out (shortly: people forget the fluffy part and post with the unique objective of winning in a site, despising the fact that in those site the fight versus his opponent wasnt illogical).

why do not put a LIMITER on number of Fight for each side that can be posted journally?

this can represent the real number of soldiers involved there... so it will be impossible for a small raiding party to destroy a fortress city and vice versa will be impossibile for a besieged fortress to resist an huge horde of armies (probably the number of soldiers in the fortress will decrease each days of siege and finally the strenuos resistance will fall down...)

I really hope to have write in a clear english.. sorry if some is not clearly explained, english is not my mother language!

:-)

cheers all (also the asur that are helping keeping hot the this fantastic campaing)

Jeffleong13 · Post by **Jeffleong13** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:25 pm

We are watching what is posted ...

J

Fireblade · Post by **Fireblade** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:04 pm

And how many fights can be posted each day. How will you choose a starting number for the limiter? How will you reduce the limiter? I think this is a bad idea, because it is going to be very bad for one side, and good for the other. For example, the limiter is on 100 victories a day for each side. The dark elfs report 100 victories, and the high elfs 200. Despite the high elfs clear advantage, nothing will change in the campaign statistics.

Fireblade

Sugacapra · Post by **Sugacapra** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:14 am

@fireblade: each side in a side can post a certain number of victory in function of how many armies are there committed this will reduce almost totally the "no fluffy cheaters" that can ruin a campaing...

if an entire army of (for example... just casual numbers

) 10000 chaotic besieged a little town of 500 people.. appear possible to you that this town will resist 10 days? to me not.. is simply because so many ppl reporting victories (false?true? are you able to know how many are true?) to the "town" side and false the fluff...
if the town can report 50 victories and the besieging 1000 the town will be crushed for sure if chaos concentrate his effort there (a real fact.. no little town can resist months if a solid army attack them...they have neither the defensive wall....)

the number of victory postable for each side will vary depending on the result of the precedent days...

(es. if the town post 50 victories and the chaos will post none , maybe they committed their strenght elsewhere, next day the town can post 50 (or little more) and the chaotic army may post a max of 950 victories (the casualties ...) this can easily represent a strenuos but doomed resistence... i.e. if the chaotic commit their effort on this little town this citizens are doomed...

Nagathi · Post by **Nagathi** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:33 pm

sugacapra: Have you ever heard of armies? You know, they are often moved around to where they are needed, thus Hellebron would send a big force to aid that little town if a major part of Morathi's force was to besiege it.

That would also be realistic; if a site is lost when the enemy reaches a specific percentage it all works great:
Real Life: The cultists gather together and plans to post a lot of their wins against that village, and they succeed to do so before the khainists had the chance to react.
In Game: Morathi's forces stormed the village before Hellebron's reinforcements could arrive.

- Nag

Sugacapra · Post by **Sugacapra** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 6:57 am

@nagathi: ok, that is true but the moving time that now (with "our" time army) is a little time, imply on the past that redeployng force time is a factor to be not understimated.

a bit OT:
To know... germany on 2nd world war lost many time redeploying force after ovverrunning poland to face french army, during the "redeploy" to make this time not totally lost the wermacht panzer were used against others europeans country that stay on the middle of the "path" (holland, denmark and benelux zone) after the germany take french they had to redeploy again... and during the redeploy time they pass over ex yugoslavian country... and this is an example based on 2nd WW where the train are functional and the redeploy time was fast...

redeploy time is a factor in middleage very important, also communication have not radio or similar way (internet? satellite?) so the orders spread in no way so fast...

Some middleage campaign (1st crusade i.e.) report of magnificient win only because there are "lucky factor" covering the "no-communication-at-all" situation... being at the right place in the right time is a lucky shot many time...

coordinate a large scale counterattack imply something that is not so real...

but ok.. this is fantasy, and we have magic to cover communication... indeed fact like force running around the map over and over sound me not so good to accept...
:-)
when we play medieval wargames (or napoleonic ...) concentrate all the forces in one strike is not so easy to do.

just my 0.2 cents,
i love this campaign much more than SoC itself, and so please, take what i write not as complaints but as critics to reach my "ideal way of game" :-) that maybe is not the right things!
:-)

cheers and have fun...