Mechanism for preventing early elimination of players

A place to discuss anything related to Art of War
Sargon
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:46 am

Mechanism for preventing early elimination of players

Postby Sargon » Sat Jul 25, 2015 7:02 am

Greetings all,

For the Medieval Europe scenario, I have given some thought on a mechanism to prevent players from being eliminated too quickly. I don't know how easy it would be to implement.

It should be obvious to the more experienced players that not all of the empires are created equal. Some empires give a massive advantage early on due to the setup of the territories' troops.

For example, empires like the Sami People, Kingdom of Norway, and Volga Bulgaria can easily capture their entire zone in the first turn. I have done it multiple times with the Sami people, and at least once with Norway. I know others have done it with Volga Bulgaria. (I am not including zones of two or three here simply because the income is smaller.) There are no sub-zones here.

Other factions, like the Kingdom of Alba, the Almoravid Dynasty, the Bagratuni Dynasty, and Byzantine Greece, can usually conquer their sub-zone in the first turn.

Players with such factions as described above usually have an advantage, especially in smaller games.

Several factions cannot in any way conquer their whole zone of sub-zone in their first turn. It's impossible. Factions like Sweden and Sicily cannot do it. Sweden for example, needs to buy both a cavalry and a siege engine. If such a player plays against Volga Bulgaria on a 1 v 1, and Volga Bulgaria captures their entire zone, my money is on Volga Bulgaria. We could switch Volga Bulgaria for the Almoravid Dynasty or the Kingdom of Alba, and my money would still not be on Sweden.

Now, I am not saying that the prices for armies should be changed.

What I am proposing is this: I think that empires should not be attacked until they either a) leave their home zone (including via water) or b) they have amassed a certain number of troops (say 50 - which would include ALL types of armies - forts, cavalry, infantry, navy, and siege engines).

This has several advantages. It allows a player to at least establish their empire defensively and prevents them from being eliminated too quickly. It also offsets a player who either captures their zone or sub-zone quickly, or those who get lucky with the dice. In addition, it offsets the disadvantage if a player gets unlucky rolls. Why should a player suffer because of probability? We can't eliminate the dice completely, but the effects of unlucky rolls or lucky rolls are much more amplified at the beginning of the game, and that's what I'm proposing we diminish. Obviously, once the clashes start, at least there will be more of a fight involved. IN addition, it forces a player to attempt to take over their entire zone before attacking others.

Another advantage is that the games will be more engaging for all involved because, in theory, truces formed at the beginning of the games may diminish somewhat. The empires / factions will be much larger troop-wise because they would not be allowed to be attacked until they reach a certain level, and players who form truces would have to think twice because their opponents would be much more formidable ... at least at the beginning. If Player A makes a truce with player B and attacks player C, player A should be sure of his chances, because if he fails, player C, who in theory should have a large army, can retaliate, possibly with severe consequences.

Of course, these suggestions have the effect of simply enabling players to amass large armies at the beginning of the game peacefully. Eliminating players quickly based on luck or taking a faction that can amass income more quickly isn't really fair to the players who are eliminated. I do think factions should have different incomes, starting troops, etc., but I do think that there should be an adjustment of some sort to balance out and offset the luck factors and setup factors which can turn the tide very quickly early on in the game.

Sargon


Custer
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2015 2:43 pm

Re: Mechanism for preventing early elimination of players

Postby Custer » Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:08 am

I read your post and I believe you have some good ideas. I am not sure what work would be necessary to implement any changes. I have been corresponding with Mr E and he informed me that he is currently looking at some changes that will be made on the Europe map. My thought was on a 10 round truce prior to having the ability to attack another player. Or perhaps starting the game with an entire region as opposed to just one territory. Of course a player would not be able to choose the Holy Roman Empire or another empire that would give the player an unfair advantage.

User avatar
e_i_pi
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:38 pm

Re: Mechanism for preventing early elimination of players

Postby e_i_pi » Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:37 am

I'll be responding to this one soon, sorry guys, been very busy lately. Some good ideas in there, but I need to explain some changes going in over the next 6 weeks that will remedy a lot of these issues :)

Sargon
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:46 am

Re: Mechanism for preventing early elimination of players

Postby Sargon » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:03 pm

Custer wrote:I read your post and I believe you have some good ideas. I am not sure what work would be necessary to implement any changes. I have been corresponding with Mr E and he informed me that he is currently looking at some changes that will be made on the Europe map. My thought was on a 10 round truce prior to having the ability to attack another player. Or perhaps starting the game with an entire region as opposed to just one territory. Of course a player would not be able to choose the Holy Roman Empire or another empire that would give the player an unfair advantage.


The round 10 truce idea is interesting.

Sargon
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:46 am

Re: Mechanism for preventing early elimination of players

Postby Sargon » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:03 pm

e_i_pi wrote:I'll be responding to this one soon, sorry guys, been very busy lately. Some good ideas in there, but I need to explain some changes going in over the next 6 weeks that will remedy a lot of these issues :)


I look forward to it. :mrgreen:

Sargon

User avatar
e_i_pi
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:38 pm

Re: Mechanism for preventing early elimination of players

Postby e_i_pi » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:36 pm

Sargon wrote:Greetings all,

For the Medieval Europe scenario, I have given some thought on a mechanism to prevent players from being eliminated too quickly. I don't know how easy it would be to implement.

It should be obvious to the more experienced players that not all of the empires are created equal. Some empires give a massive advantage early on due to the setup of the territories' troops.

That's the main issue here I believe. I have to do some research into which empires and factions win / lose the most, then I'll be able to adjust the troops on the neutral territories to balance it out a bit more. The complicating factor here is that I'll be changing Medieval Era as well to make cavalry more effective, siege play a defensive role as well as offensive, and introduce a fair amount more battle types for greater variety.

For example, empires like the Sami People, Kingdom of Norway, and Volga Bulgaria can easily capture their entire zone in the first turn. I have done it multiple times with the Sami people, and at least once with Norway. I know others have done it with Volga Bulgaria. (I am not including zones of two or three here simply because the income is smaller.) There are no sub-zones here.

Other factions, like the Kingdom of Alba, the Almoravid Dynasty, the Bagratuni Dynasty, and Byzantine Greece, can usually conquer their sub-zone in the first turn.

Players with such factions as described above usually have an advantage, especially in smaller games.

This was factored in when I determined how many neutral troops are on each territory. Basically, I made the neutral troops on the territories equal to the zone bonus multiplied by a factor of 2 or 3 (can't remember which, I could work it out though). Unfortunately, this has left a few places too heavily defended (q.v. England, France, Iraq) and others too easy to capture (q.v. Africa, Finland, Norway). As for micro-zones like Iceland and Crimea, they should stay the same, as even if you capture them in round 1 (which is almost 100% guaranteed), the bonus is tiny and in order to increase your income you have to capture a completely different zone, rather than "upsize" your home zone (e.g. Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Turkey, Caucasus)

Several factions cannot in any way conquer their whole zone of sub-zone in their first turn. It's impossible. Factions like Sweden and Sicily cannot do it. Sweden for example, needs to buy both a cavalry and a siege engine. If such a player plays against Volga Bulgaria on a 1 v 1, and Volga Bulgaria captures their entire zone, my money is on Volga Bulgaria. We could switch Volga Bulgaria for the Almoravid Dynasty or the Kingdom of Alba, and my money would still not be on Sweden.

Now, I am not saying that the prices for armies should be changed.

And they won't be, that's a different factor altogether. Cavalry seems expensive because I haven't given them enough power in the Medieval Era rules. As I said before that will be changing. To give people an idea, Cavalry will get +1 to all dice dice rolls, EXCEPT in sieges OR when landing from a boat. That should be enough to balance them I think.

What I am proposing is this: I think that empires should not be attacked until they either a) leave their home zone (including via water) or b) they have amassed a certain number of troops (say 50 - which would include ALL types of armies - forts, cavalry, infantry, navy, and siege engines).

This has several advantages. It allows a player to at least establish their empire defensively and prevents them from being eliminated too quickly. It also offsets a player who either captures their zone or sub-zone quickly, or those who get lucky with the dice. In addition, it offsets the disadvantage if a player gets unlucky rolls. Why should a player suffer because of probability? We can't eliminate the dice completely, but the effects of unlucky rolls or lucky rolls are much more amplified at the beginning of the game, and that's what I'm proposing we diminish. Obviously, once the clashes start, at least there will be more of a fight involved. IN addition, it forces a player to attempt to take over their entire zone before attacking others.

Another advantage is that the games will be more engaging for all involved because, in theory, truces formed at the beginning of the games may diminish somewhat. The empires / factions will be much larger troop-wise because they would not be allowed to be attacked until they reach a certain level, and players who form truces would have to think twice because their opponents would be much more formidable ... at least at the beginning. If Player A makes a truce with player B and attacks player C, player A should be sure of his chances, because if he fails, player C, who in theory should have a large army, can retaliate, possibly with severe consequences.

Of course, these suggestions have the effect of simply enabling players to amass large armies at the beginning of the game peacefully. Eliminating players quickly based on luck or taking a faction that can amass income more quickly isn't really fair to the players who are eliminated. I do think factions should have different incomes, starting troops, etc., but I do think that there should be an adjustment of some sort to balance out and offset the luck factors and setup factors which can turn the tide very quickly early on in the game.


Yeah, there's a few issues here that I can see. It's a thorough way of thinking through the problem, but possibly not the simplest solution. Something like this would confuse new players and make it more difficult for them, and let's face it, Medieval Europe is reasonably complex. The Scenario still has to be easily accessible, and lumping it with complex rules, while making it more fair, would also make it more confusing.

We'll go with adjusting the Scenario and Era, that should address most of it, then it should be down to fine tuning after that. I'll be drafting up a proposal for the new Medieval Era rules soon, to give everyone a chance to review it and see if they like it.

e_i_pi

User avatar
e_i_pi
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:38 pm

Re: Mechanism for preventing early elimination of players

Postby e_i_pi » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:38 pm

Custer wrote:I read your post and I believe you have some good ideas. I am not sure what work would be necessary to implement any changes. I have been corresponding with Mr E and he informed me that he is currently looking at some changes that will be made on the Europe map. My thought was on a 10 round truce prior to having the ability to attack another player. Or perhaps starting the game with an entire region as opposed to just one territory. Of course a player would not be able to choose the Holy Roman Empire or another empire that would give the player an unfair advantage.

This again complicates things a bit, and I'm not sure I like the idea of starting with your entire zone. Each zone has a different bonus, so you'd be mad to choose somewhere like Crimea or Iceland. At the moment, they can be a good choice depending on whether you have teammates, and which other factions are playing. Also, if you start with your entire zone, then when you border an opposing faction, the player that goes last would have an increased upper hand when it comes to breaking bonuses.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest