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
» Contact Us
Showcase
» Age of Conquest
» Demise of Nations
» Retro Commander

































Multiplayer Forums


Board index » Games » Age of Conquest (AOC)


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Sea Battle Mechanics
PostPosted: 19 Oct 2017, 05:08 
Peasant
Peasant

Joined: 28 May 2016, 03:18
Posts: 43
I've enjoyed the game so far, and I love the constant improving of the game.

I think it's time that we talk about the logic of sea battle. I think it's time for us to "discuss" the possible installment of a new sea battle mechanics.

Right now, "1" ship can stop the movement of a "2000" fleet. People are used to it now. When players are trying to trap/delay a massive sea army, they throw out bits of scout ships to limit their opponent's movement, or preventing them from rushing the offshore cities.

I think we can change that into a more fun & realistic scenario.


I propose that we should let the 2000 Navy ramp through the 1 ship, deducting 1 ship cost from the 2000 fleet, and still able to arrive to the destination territory with 1999 Navy, within 1 move.


This will increase the tempo, and the intensity of the game.

And to counter it, in addition to the 30% sea attack defensive bonus for the offshore cities, any navy that's positioned offshore should receive a Defensive bonus of 30% as well.

To balance the willingness for players going for sea battle, the cost for creating a navy should deduct from 50% of the army, to 25%.

By cheaper navy cost, and letting big fleets "ramp through" the smaller fleets, this gives the offensive end a new way to think about an invasion, while we still give the defensive end a way to strategically plan their fleet placement.

Please think about it Noble! Time for a major update xD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sea Battle Mechanics
PostPosted: 19 Oct 2017, 12:16 
Serf
Serf

Joined: 24 Jan 2017, 22:02
Posts: 11
If moving at full speed, the "attacking" navy would have to ignore the defenders in order to complete the movement, dealing reduced damage and leaving themselves vulnerable in the process. I think the defender would need additional bonuses in this scenario. My suggestion would be even more brutal bonuses/penalties, but make the attack move optional. Could be a simple checkbox like the "move king" button, along with offering the full 3 movement, no matter what enemy ships are in the way.

I think the ratios should remain as-is for loss calculations, but if attack-move is selected, the defender only loses 10% while the attacker loses the standard value. So in 100vs20 scenario, the attacker would lose 20, and the defender would only lose 10.

Regarding coastal sea defense, it could be an option. I would prefer it only being in place if the defender has not moved this turn to prevent some ugly sniping.

How should this influence happiness? I assume it would only count as a victory if one navy was completely removed. Or should it depend on #losses?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sea Battle Mechanics
PostPosted: 19 Oct 2017, 19:32 
Serf
Serf

Joined: 20 Nov 2016, 18:19
Posts: 7
As rickster and nudelsoup said. It is a good idea to be able to advance through many sea provinces in one movement when you fight some tiny fleets. Because with that overwhelming power you would be able to annihilate that ship without unforeseen difficulty as in a 2000-1 fight. I think the maximum damage it can cause is to sink one ship and delay them a little.
I do not think as nudelsoup about the checkbox because it is a movement you need to make many times. So in live games that may slow down you.
Therefore, my proposal is to allow you move a maximum of 2 provinces when the first fleet you clash is at least 10 times smaller than you are. Then you will move another province if it is your first piece of sea you travel (1 of 3) or you will stop if it is the second one you travel (2 of 3) making it a maximum of 2 provinces when you clash tiny fleets.
I wouldn’t add any penalty anywhere. The idea of having +30% defence when the fleet is next to your coast, for myself is like having +30% defence when a foreign country try to conquer your land. So, I can’t see any upper reason for doing it only offshore. However, I would like to discuss this and know the specific reasons about this feature.
Finally, I also don’t think that we should change the cost of sailing. It’s a good strategy right now, when there is a lot of money, to charge through the sea because both would build walls and a big armies at the frontiers. In addition, experienced players use it often and it’s working well everything except for the excessive amount of time it can take to travel when there are ships filling all the sea.
Let’s check this and other alternatives and try to find out what is the best resolution for this issue.
;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sea Battle Mechanics
PostPosted: 20 Oct 2017, 05:10 
Game Developer
Game Developer
User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2005, 02:34
Posts: 8148
Location: Honolulu
I agree, that definitely makes sense considering 2000 vs. 1 ship wouldn't really pose a problem and a -1 deduction should be fine. However, does it make sense game-play wise? I am aware ships are used to "block" larger troops. However, this always comes with a -1% happiness penalty somewhat discouraging it, unless you don't mind losing happiness!

The question is when that should come into effect? 100x bigger army? 10x bigger? Also, not sure how feasible this is to implement & visualize technically?

_________________
play: Age of Conquest IV


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sea Battle Mechanics
PostPosted: 20 Oct 2017, 22:09 
Serf
Serf

Joined: 20 Nov 2016, 18:19
Posts: 7
As noblemaster said the -1% happiness you lose every time can make you think twice before doing it. Nevertheless, in a war between a large country and a tiny one. That morale penalty for the tiny one is negligible and in a sea as the Mediterranean Sea. He could make a lot of time until turn limit arrives or he gets money by income or funding. Therefore, it can be a nuisance to get there and see he could defend at the last moment. So this process should speed up and maybe decrease his happiness -2% every time he loses two fleets, however the winner only gets 1% because he had just won two insignificant battles.

About the second thing of 10x or 100x times bigger. I am not sure too but in a 100-10 battle I think it can take a little of time, however in a 100-1 battle it is sure you will beat him in no time. Now my number would be make it when 20x bigger as in 100-5 clashes you can get rid of him quickly or a 400-20 because large army has complex logistics. Nevertheless, more players should think about this number and contrast our ideas.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sea Battle Mechanics
PostPosted: 22 Oct 2017, 06:14 
Peasant
Peasant

Joined: 28 May 2016, 03:18
Posts: 43
I've read all y'all's replies. Some good ideas, but I would like to elaborate on my proposal more:

1.
The main reason for this mechanics change, would be increasing gameplay options. The big fleets should be able sail full speed, if the enemy fleet is smaller than 50% percent of the big fleet.

Example:
2000 ships fleet should be able to ramp through any fleet size smaller than 999, with deducted ships left to the destined territory.
If the 2000 ships fleet faced a 1200 ships fleet, its travel will be limited.


2.
With the "ramp through" feature added, that means players won't be able to prevent a snipe or coast boarding with their "1" blocker ship. So, in order to counter the "ramp through" offensive feature, I suggested the 30% defensive bonus for the coastline ships. This gives the offensive nation an ideal reason to build a "super navy", while giving the defensive nation more options to strategically place their coast defensive fleet. (in real world it is always harder to invade, rather than defend)

Example:
In the current mechanics: The 2000 ship fleet wants to snipe City A. Owner of City A would just have to drop 1 or 2 ships on City A's coastline, to block the snipe. This is simple, but basic. Not much "play" is happening, kind of the standard way to defend now.

New 2018 Mechanics: The 2000 ship fleet wants to snipe City A. Owner of City A has to place more than 1K ships, in order to stop the "ramp through" sniping. However, with the 30% coast defensive bonus, with 539 more troops, a total of 1539 troops, City A owner would be able to wipe out the 2K fleet.

The new mechanics as I proposed, will make sea battle troop numbers just as crucial as land battle troop number, but with more intensity of the extra distance and the ramp through option.


3.
The cost deduction of the navy creation. Now after the first two ideas are installed, clearly the spending for navy battle will increase. In order to keep things interesting, the cost of making navy should be from 50% to 25%. That'll increase the willingness for players to be creative on their invasion.

Example:
Originally when we create a 2K fleet, the fee would be 1K, so the total spending will be 3K. Now with the new mechanics, it would be 2K troops, 500 fee, total of 2.5K.
This will encourage players to be more active on invasion, and it would set up the game image of "We don't want you to camp."


The happiness -1 idea should still be there. No change for that.
Please let me know what you think of this more detailed explanation!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sea Battle Mechanics
PostPosted: 22 Oct 2017, 06:42 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: 04 Mar 2016, 07:18
Posts: 101
If you're looking for realism, likely even one battleship would cause a fleet to slow down from full speed ahead. For instance, the Battle of the Denmark Strait involved 2 German ships versus 10 from the UK. Not only did the 2 German ships fully stop 5x their numbers from forward progression, they led them on a three day chase.

Faced by even a single ship, an entire fleet no matter its strength is going to go into battle formations and evasive maneuvers if any of its $100M+ vessels are at risk of being sunk.

I think one of the advantages of the current system is that it gives a weaker nation some amount of defensive tactics to use to their advantage where otherwise they'd get blown over.

If it is changed, I think even a small fleet should noticeably slow the advancement of attacking ships.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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:
cron

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

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