Post by Archmage Vazra on Apr 5, 2016 20:32:17 GMT -5
Also, if it's still not too late to give feedback. I feel it's odd that Barracks have a civilian requirement, it's basically just housing. Actual barracks would surely be staffed by the unit residing there. Additionally, unlike the Trade equivalent, Barracks don't provide any kind of passive bonus. So it seems a reasonable tradeoff. Guest housing doesn't have a passive bonus either, but it makes more sense to have a civilian requirement as they're probably waiting on the guests / upkeeping the rooms.
Post by Archmage Vazra on Apr 8, 2016 12:59:56 GMT -5
I've been made aware that a unit defending a settlement uses a load of supplies when it is attacked. I find that kind of odd, and mechanically pretty brutal. It would be one thing if the enemy set up a prolonged siege complete with their own camp and tried to starve the defenders out, but perhaps that could be better represented by a penalty to the harvest? Charging a whole load seems odd, somebody could probably make a good case that it would be worth it to just sacrifice civilians to save the supplies. Besides, what exactly is happening there? Is the unit just binge eating throughout the entire attack? Again, unless it's like a prolonged siege, their day to day life probably isn't changing much.
Mainly because in order to do an action to defend, that is an action, which requires the use of supplies. Plus, without this requirement, it will basically be broken... a defender in their settlement gets bonuses from walls (if built) and an attacker has to spend supplies every month to attack where a defender can just sit and wait it out.
Plus, a unit *resting* in a home settlement doesn't use supplies; actively defending is not resting. Plus, should a faction be faced with a prolonged siege, you could choose to rest a month and leave the defense up to your civilians, cycling out the defenders to rest and heal (and not use supplies) but leaves your people to fend for themselves, who are usually not prepared to deal with heavy fighting. Your units are not *required* to defend the settlement; they can rest instead.
Post by mandaloretim on Apr 9, 2016 18:31:01 GMT -5
I see what you're getting at, but i think like drake said do a neg to your harvest. since the enemy is stoping you/making it hard to get food. having your troops need extra food just to do their job is a bit ruff. again i do understand that it's for balancing but still.
Post by Archmage Vazra on Apr 9, 2016 18:37:57 GMT -5
I get it conceptually, but I do think it's right both mecahnically and for immersion that a siege be harder to maintain than to endure. It would take a very delibrate and large effort to starve defenders out. I don't feel a single skirmish wpuld significantly impact anything. That would imply you could starve out Newhope by probing it with Militia units every month.
And again, it just seems brutal to charge a full load considering many factions often have none to spare.
Unrelated note; items to clarify/fix. - Timeframes for training/construction. Need to be more clear cut on providing the action and then time to completion; some things seem weird, as in training something that takes 1 month is actually 2 due to the 1st month being the submitted action and the 2nd month being the training period. needs to be streamlined.
- Not sure if I listed this, but streamlining combat; The +1/-1 flips (similar to income) get a little wonky, but unsure of a "threshold" number being hit (similar to harvests) is the answer. But combat will get a bit streamlined.
Siege Mechanics/Ideas (furthering the current discussion) I still stand by this making sense. If a unit was being attacked in the field, they have to expend supplies (or morale) to act. Why would this be any different when stationed at home?
Currently, sieges are easier to endue and harder to maintain. Attackers do not have the choice of allowing the civilians to absorb the damage of an attack and those civilians don't require supplies to act. Factions with walls and Town Guards basically have free defenders that never need supplies... they are not good, but they will resist an attack. By having additional units stationed at home and actively defending, they need food and supplies... they are not doing chores and random bits around the settlement and tending to their own things, they are actively defending and doing a job. This requires supplies.
The observation that you could starve out Newhope by probing it with militia every month is not exactly a fair assessment. First, Newhope creates enough food that unless it is a major assault, probing Militia will not do a lot. Second, is that for that observation to be true, you are assuming that the probing attackers have enough supplies nearby or in reserve to keep up attacks by militia every month without a dedicated siege. Attackers *have* to consume supplies, so "probing" missions will do very little to hamper Newhope but will eat up considerable resources. While yes, this is a way to hamper a larger settlement (which is actually currently happening... when bandits roam and hit the outskirts of a settlement, it does either small bits of damage to the settlement or drain resources as that settlement sends guards to repel/patrol) it is not really putting that settlement in danger. But yes, small skirmish/hit and run border attacks are indeed a way to drain resources of a settlement.
As for the supplies and factions, that is not necessarily true. Some factions have stockpiles of supplies and some run through them quickly. But this is also part of the design; if a thriving/growing settlement is not besieged or running into problems, then they have a chance to make headway and get supplies and use them for growth, expansion, or training. But if a settlement does not keep any supplies in reserve, then they are indeed in danger of having an attack on their settlement or a siege be very dangerous to their people. There are tons of references to movies where a siege ended up being a waiting game to see who had enough food and supplies to outlast the other... but these are sieges that took months, sometimes years, to play out. Our scale is more skirmish stuff... we are not hiding behind castles and waiting for a year for attackers to leave, we are rallying militia and soldiers to repel active attacks on our settlement. Yes, this is part of the game... having supplies (and sometimes even troops) on hand to defend a settlement based on circumstances.
The siege mechanic will be a bit more passive and not involve as many direct attacks on a settlement, but instead hamper their ability to make supplies. For example, let's say 2 units move close enough to attack settlement. 1 unit makes an attack on the settlement and the other 1 attacks their farms/supply infrastructure. The defenders actively repel the attackers by giving a defense action to a stationed unit, but against the attackers that focus on the farms are unopposed, so they therefore either hamper the harvest score or negate it entirely. The following month, the attackers rest one unit (chance to not consume the supplies they brought with them on this siege) but they actively attack the farms/supplies again. The defenders have a choice; retract and keep their farmers safe and lose their harvest roll, or actively send their unit out to repel the attack to get the farms going again... doing so would indeed expend another load of supplies. Let's say instead, they rest... which consumes no supplies in the settlement and heals them; this alone gives them a benefit above the attackers who are eating supplies while stationed outside. Attrition favors the defenders since the 50% to consume supplies by the attackers means they will always eventually run out of supplies. This indeed could turn into a waiting game where nobody ever really gets hurt... the fight stalls and the farms stop producing a harvest. If this is during prime harvest season, this could be devastating to a settlement as they lose the chance to take advantage of the easy harvest.
Our rules also favor "action" instead of stalling, so most of the time the mechanics are leaning more towards "finding/getting to a resolution" instead of just stalling out. Fights always damage both people, there is always a minimum of damage during combat, and attrition kicks in in a manner of months instead of seasons or years.
Also keep in mind, there can be/will be instances where the players may need to lay siege to a settlement, not just meet enemies in the field. Would this discussion be different if the example used was a player faction's units attacking a settlement, knowing that the defenders never have to worry about supplies since they are stationed at home? I think the risk would make sieging any settlement so high that nobody would ever do it. Yes, besieging a settlement *should* be a high-risk course of action, but not impossible.
Last Edit: Apr 10, 2016 12:47:46 GMT -5 by Jopper13
Post by Archmage Vazra on Apr 11, 2016 11:37:35 GMT -5
I just feel the supply requirements for using your units can be pretty steep. I didn't even realize a unit requires another load of supplies to engage beyond one to deploy, but that seems a bit heavy too. I would just charge them the flat 1 load every month they are away from home.
The maximum supplies a settlement can produce is 2 a month, and that is quite a rare occurance even with an advanced settlement. I don't think it's unreasonable that they should be able to support a single unit in the field for an extended period of time.
Upgraded weapons and armor may change to having a -1 econ drain if they are stacked or their econ drain reduces to zero if they are resting and stationed at home. It seems balanced to think that the high quality/expensive weapons and armor given to a unit would really be more of a concern when deployed and in action, not so much resting around the homefront.