Multiplayer Hub Logo  
  Powered by Noble Master Games, http://www.noblemaster.com Multiplayer Dragon
  Forums Twitter Dev. Blog ⊕  
Home > Forums

MultiplayerHub.com
» Forums|New Posts
» Twitter
» Dev. Blog
» About Us
Showcase
» Age of Conquest
» Demise of Nations
» Retro Commander

































Multiplayer Forums


We have moved to /r/NobleMaster on Reddit...


Board index » Games » Age of Conquest (AOC) » AOC: Feature Requests


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

How would you guy's like it?
A) Leave as is (-1% for aggressor until war is over) 50%  50%  [ 5 ]
B) -1% for aggressor until peace/ceasefire is requested (by the aggressor) 10%  10%  [ 1 ]
C) -1% for aggressor and defender that is eliminated by requesting peace/ceasefire (for the whoever requests first) 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
D) -1% for aggressor and defender that is eliminated by requesting peace/ceasefire (for each person who requests) 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
E) -1% for aggressor and switches to defender if they reject/ignore peace/ceasefire (and then back and forth if defender and aggressor go back and forth rejecting/ignoring each others peace/ceasefire) 20%  20%  [ 2 ]
F) Scrap the new idea completely (for ppl who think the old way is better) 20%  20%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 10
Author Message
 Post subject: Reworking the -1%/turn
PostPosted: 06 Sep 2019, 05:09 
Serf
Serf

Joined: 07 Apr 2019, 07:56
Posts: 9
I'm relatively indifferent to the new -1%/turn penalty for declaring wars. However, I fear that the defender could take advantage of this by never accepting peace. I personally think this could be solved by making it so that the penalty is removed as long as an attempt for peace has been made (i.e. a ceasefire or peace request sent).

This could also work well for if both defender and offender are loosing 1%/turn, since in theory the person worse off will be the one requesting peace/ceasefire.

The poll is a list of ideas I made to gauge what you guys want since knowing peoples opinion will definitely help with help noblemaster decision make for the next update :^^:

If you have any other suggestions that's what the reply section is for ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reworking the -1%/turn
PostPosted: 06 Sep 2019, 13:33 
Game Developer
Game Developer
User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2005, 02:34
Posts: 8580
Location: Honolulu
I first thought (B) was a good idea. However, players will attack another nation, gain some new territory quickly and then send the peace request.

If the defender rejects, which is probably likely as they want to re-gain the lost territory, on the other hand the attacker will have all the penalties wiped.

_________________
play: Age of Conquest IV


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reworking the -1%/turn
PostPosted: 07 Sep 2019, 20:57 
Serf
Serf

Joined: 20 Nov 2016, 18:19
Posts: 18
Noblemaster, that's true

noblemaster wrote:
I first thought (B) was a good idea. However, players will attack another nation, gain some new territory quickly and then send the peace request.

If the defender rejects, which is probably likely as they want to re-gain the lost territory, on the other hand the attacker will have all the penalties wiped.


I have seen some players telling me. I don't want to peace him because he attacked me and conquered all lands except my king (fortified island or good spot to defend) and request me some protection or money.

I think most times it is a valid strategy to fight until the very end and I don't like the proposal of avoiding the penalty. The attacker reaps what he saws. If you declare war to a player, you will have to fight him until the very end or both agree in peace. It doesn't matter if his king or last land is surrounded by other lands and you can't get your troops there. Trade province or ask your ally to abandon it. And if he protects your enemy "the protector of your enemy is your enemy".

The -1% penalty isn't very harmful when it is a surprise attack when you kill your enemy first or second turn after war starts. But the longer the war the worse for you, a super long war of 100 turns in a huge map means a huge difference.

In fact, I keep thinking that when two players want to fight to get first or make an attack after hundreds of turns of total alliances. They can agree to fight each other, therefore no penalty is needed because there is no attacker. Instead of the classic gang I'm first you are second.

My vote is: I like -1% penalty, but I want to add mutual agreement wars


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reworking the -1%/turn
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2019, 20:25 
Serf
Serf
User avatar

Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 07:15
Posts: 5
I agree that in its current form, the happiness penalty is not perfect. But it's clearly something that's hard to balance, with all the various war configurations possible...
I voted E because it could be interesting (and somewhat realistic) that rejecting peace offers would lead to unhappiness for your citizens.

Another suggestion (unrelated to offers of peace/ceasefire etc) would be to increase the penalty/turn when the war draws for too long: for example, after a full year at war, penalty increases to 2% – because your citizens are getting tired of paying taxes and losing their homes over war…


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reworking the -1%/turn
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2020, 10:12 
Knight
Knight
User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2012, 17:45
Posts: 1241
my vote is for A (leave as is)... don't start a war you can't finish, slay or be slain :pal:

_________________
The One True Howard

2008 - 2018

rest in anarchy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reworking the -1%/turn
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2020, 03:35 
Serf
Serf

Joined: 20 Dec 2019, 09:16
Posts: 10
I voted F. I don't like this idea at all; the 10% happiness penalty for declaring oversees wars is enough. Large nations can collapse because a small country was cheeky enough to hide his last ship some where. This also opens up strategies where a country buys a province completely surrounded by an ally to kill of the happiness of his enemies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reworking the -1%/turn
PostPosted: 03 Feb 2020, 09:10 
Knight
Knight
User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2012, 17:45
Posts: 1241
i reiterate the don't start a war you can't finish statement lol

i would say the penalty should probably end once the enemy has 0 provinces? not the "war" itself, that should still be left to diplomacy, but the -1% seems harsh for an enemy you've basically already defeated and are just chasing around the map now

an enemy buying/possessing a safe haven is part of the game, preventing or accounting for it is up to the attacker ;)

_________________
The One True Howard

2008 - 2018

rest in anarchy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reworking the -1%/turn
PostPosted: 07 Feb 2020, 02:13 
Serf
Serf

Joined: 20 Dec 2019, 09:16
Posts: 10
KingHowardII wrote:
i reiterate the don't start a war you can't finish statement lol

i would say the penalty should probably end once the enemy has 0 provinces? not the "war" itself, that should still be left to diplomacy, but the -1% seems harsh for an enemy you've basically already defeated and are just chasing around the map now

an enemy buying/possessing a safe haven is part of the game, preventing or accounting for it is up to the attacker ;)


Obviously that's a part of the game; that's what the mechanics encourage. Doesn't mean that it should be that way. There is already enough of a penalty for declaring war. This just makes the game overly defensive.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reworking the -1%/turn
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2020, 12:36 
Knight
Knight
User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2012, 17:45
Posts: 1241
as someone who played for over a decade, across 3 versions, using savvy defense to confound my would be killers in hundreds of games, i would disagree...

now don't be a flower... grab your tater tots and go KILL THOSE PEASANTS!!! if they hide behind other peasants, KILL THOSE PEASANTS TOO!!! YOU CAN DO IT!! :partyyy:

if the peasants happen to kill you, hey, **** happens. its not about winning or losing, its about how many peasants you can kill before they 3-hole you ;)

_________________
The One True Howard

2008 - 2018

rest in anarchy


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Green Smilies by http://www.greensmilies.com/

Home  |  Forums  |  Twitter  |  Dev. Blog  |  About Us