New setting: Upkeep [Poll for minimum reinforcements]

[SirSebstar]

OliverFA,
would it be possible to have
Upkeep Cost=( Number of armies- number of countries) *Upkeep modifier
or something. if you have a big map. you start with more countries. So the upkeep would hit sooner then on a small map. But in this way you at least do not get punished for having no bonussess.

strategies that would go boom.
it does mean you need the bonussess of countries more then the amount of countries.

That is what already happens. Isn't it? You need the bonuses of countries in order to have a good income.

So if you get a lucky drop. its better to stay relativly small and gather forces then to keep whacking and winning the game more quickly.

Again, in my opinion that's also the current situation. Take the classic map. It's better to secure yourself in Africa or even Australia than try to get all the Asia territories.

No, I win a goo many games without taking bonussess if i need to kill neutrals for it. I usually get my extra troops from having more countries then my opponant and roll over him from there. This tactic would not work on an upkeep map.
With the new tactic i need to spend troops and time to kill neutrals to get the extra bonussess active to be able to continue defeating my opponant..

[eddie2]

would this not blow the feudal games that are all about stacking out of proportion maybe make it ok for none conquest maps but on conquest you need 2 stack.

[SirSebstar]

lol @ eddie, i se the dot have been on premium again...
yea, it sucks to be on them maps with upkeep. although you can just go for the power attack and do not have any stacks. just keep attacking asap and you will grow bigger faster then your opponant,
obviously assuming you can maintain the rate of attrition by the upkeep doe to lands you own

[Dako]

You stack in feudal because you want to get your opponent in 1 hit. With upkeep you will slowly kill neutrals, few at each turn. But in the end you will have a stack anyway, just not that big.

[OliverFA]

Thanks for your comments Dako. And specially for pointing the possible flaws to the idea, because it will result in a better suggestion. Either I manage to explain why you don't need to wrry about your concerns, or either I don't manage, and then they are taken in consideration. In any case, the result is a good one.

I'll try to add my comments to the debate.

I like the idea, but I think the formula should be changed to reflect number of territories. Maybe together with armies.

Could you please explain in which way you would like to include territories into the formula? Do you want territories to affect upkeep cost? or do you want them to affect upkeep limit?

It's my opinion that territories are already factored in the formula even if we don't see them. I'll explain that:
- About the upkeep cost: Each territory requires at least one army to be placed in that territory at all times. As that army has an upkeep cost, we are effectively taking territories into consideration for the upkeeep cost.
- About the upkeep limit: Each territory contributes to the reinforcement (one third in standard rules, like in classic map) as reinforcements are what is used for calculating the upkeep limit, and as territories raise reinfocement, territories are effectively raising the upkeep limit.

For example, take classic map 1v1. You have 14 starting regions with 3 armies on each - that will result on 2 upkeep cost deduction at the very start. And you will get 2 armies to deploy.

Is your concern that you will start deploying less than 3 armies to deploy in the first turn? I see that point. Woodruff raised that concern, and despite originally I prefer to have 0 as reinforcement minimum, I understand that this part should take more consideration and that maybe 3 would be a more suitable minimum. But I am undecided about that yet.

Also, you cannot add <UpkeepMultiplier> to current maps as they are already quenched and to balance 100+ maps for this feature seems impossible.

We need a solution that will work for all current maps without their XML tweaks.

I did not explain myself properly. That taf is intended as an additional tool for mapmakers, not as a way to tweak existing maps. Is my opinion that, as territories are already factored in the formula (as I explained above) existing maps are already balanced. Big maps tend have many territories and they also tend to have big bonuses. This ensures that upkeep limits for big maps will be bigger than for smaller maps.

However, I think we could use Classic, Doodle's and World 2.1 to study how the formula escalates with different sizes. I propose those three maps because they are supposed to be different size of the same concept.

Some new maps may implement that multiplier, but only as a new feature. Which is a doubtful feature because it affects only 1 game type. No one has <FlatRateValues> for some maps because those values are basic and should be shared by all maps.

This is more a Foundry discussion, but it is also my opinion that the obligation to make maps playable in all settings hurts some good ideas. For example, Nuclear spoils completely spoils objective maps like Middle Ages. Cash the wrong spoil and you instantly kill a player. Escalating spoils also spoils maps with carefully balanced bonuses. I think that new maps should be able to limit the settings which are suitable for that map. I humbly think that a map revolving around upkeep would be a great map even if it was not playable in the other settings. Like a map centered about the assassin type would be also a good map even if it was not playable with the other settings.

So... I think we should work towards changing the formula, but I really like the idea.

Thanks again for your comments And in which way would you change the formula?

[Dako]

Will not multi-quote you, just some thoughts.

Upkeep setting should limit players to expand heavily. It means careful planning when you have developed on the map already. In my 1v1 Classic example - it was round 1 and player was already limited which I think is a bit wrong.

Maybe we can add player count into the formula as well (but it might get too complicated).

As for the regions formula. I think 1 territory can feed X armies. This constant multiplied by the number of regions you won should be subtracted from your unfeeded armies, which will be counted towards Upkeep limit. Let's say, that each terr can feed 3 soldiers (as per start-up settings on the map). Each auto-deploy territory can feed x5 of the number it autodeploys. This way it will take you 3 turns to get out of the Upkeep limit without attacks. Of course, the numbers can be tweaked to change the pace.

I am not sure if you want this setting to differ a lot from the current gameplay, or do you want it to be slightly different. That will result in on how strict the formula will be.

As for foundry discussion - I am pretty sure there are maps that are suitable for certain settings (take Hive - I can only play it with unlimited forts for team game), but they do not restrict the map from other settings. Also, it would be damn hard to code dynamic game creation and validation rules if we are based on the map specifics. Map XML is only triggered when the game has been initialized and during the play. Calling it from creation page would severely impact current code.

As for instantly killing a player in some games - yapp, that are nukes. You can always nuke your own castle in feudal and that would be such a pain. But it is the game choice you have made.

I think the most important question is what do you want of this setting - be completely different (force offensive strategy) or just be a tool to limit stacking games.

[SirSebstar]

the difference between nuking in the middle age and nuking in fuedal is that if you hit your 1 stack castle in feudal, you will loose some auto deploys. if you nuke it in the middle age's its game over..

[Dako]

Well, what can I say - do not play it in nukes then.

[OliverFA]

Thanks Dako, SirSebstar and eddie for your comments. I will also only comment in the most important points in order to make the post not too long or overcomplicated:

Upkeep setting should limit players to expand heavily. It means careful planning when you have developed on the map already. In my 1v1 Classic example - it was round 1 and player was already limited which I think is a bit wrong.

I see that not getting any income in your first turn just because the map where you started is too big is very ugly and can be frustrating for the player. Now I understand that's an issue and should be addressed.

would it be possible to have
Upkeep Cost=( Number of armies- number of countries) *Upkeep modifier
or something. if you have a big map. you start with more countries. So the upkeep would hit sooner then on a small map. But in this way you at least do not get punished for having no bonussess.

Granting X armies per territory as you suggest could solve the problem. It is still simple and easy to understand. It makes more sense while still keeping the essence of the idea intact. I think your suggestions could be included in the formula and make it like this:

Code: Select all

Upkeep Cost=(# of armies - 3* # of territories) *Upkeep modifier

Code: Select all

Reinforcements=Reinforcement bonuses-Upkeep Cost

So at the begining of any given game, players are just at the point when upkeep costs are about to begining to impact their reinforcement income, and they don't feel frustrated.

I am not sure if you want this setting to differ a lot from the current gameplay, or do you want it to be slightly different. That will result in on how strict the formula will be.

The purpose of the idea is not to change the game just for the sake of change. Is to make the game more strategic, rewarding long-term planning and also resembling a bit more actual war, so being a bit more "realistic".

[Dako]

If we go from (# of armies - 3* # of territories) number, then we will be forced a player to amass 20 extra armies to be hit by upkeep. With people attacking almost every turn and conquering some territories it might be really hard to get to the upkeep point. So that will work only for conquest maps and maybe some stalemates.

Any normal game will not get to the point that you have 20 more armies than 3 times of your territory count. People fort and attack a lot. Even in NS games.

[OliverFA]

If we go from (# of armies - 3* # of territories) number, then we will be forced a player to amass 20 extra armies to be hit by upkeep. With people attacking almost every turn and conquering some territories it might be really hard to get to the upkeep point. So that will work only for conquest maps and maybe some stalemates.

Any normal game will not get to the point that you have 20 more armies than 3 times of your territory count. People fort and attack a lot. Even in NS games.

I see. Well. I think it needs carefully thinking and tweaking to find the right number. Maybe it's 3 or maybe it's a bit lower. But definitely now I am convinced that territories should grant some free armies. Will have some thougts about it and see which number I end up with.

[Woodruff]

strategies that would go boom.
it does mean you need the bonussess of countries more then the amount of countries.

That is what already happens. Isn't it? You need the bonuses of countries in order to have a good income.

Not in escalating, no...unless the map is a huge one.

[Woodruff]

I like the idea IF it doesn't ever cause someone to receive less than three armies (the default). Yes, I know this can occasionally happen on certain maps (which pisses me off), but it shouldn't happen as a setting.

I see your point. After all with the current system players get 3 reinforcements even if they don't have the required 9 territories.
But I am not sure this would make sense. I would prefer the minimum reinforcements to be 0 and not 3. I think it makes a lot more sense. A single territory shouldn't be able to create additional reinforcements forever. On the other hand, having a minimum of 3 reinforcements just makes the slow building situations a lot more slow.
And from the gameplay perspective, remember that receiving 0 reinforcements would mean that you already have a decent army (15, 30 or 60 depending on the setting, or bigger if you retreated.).

But what of the situation where you've been decimated down to one territory. So you go into stack-mode in a desperate bid to win the game in the only way possible for you. By your reckoning, they should never be able to gain any armies? Thus, you cannot possibly win the game. I don't personally believe that is a good thing.

[OliverFA]

But what of the situation where you've been decimated down to one territory. So you go into stack-mode. By your reckoning, they should never be able to gain any armies? I don't personally believe that is a good thing.

Of course they shouldn't. That's the whole point of the suggestion. It is supposed to be more "realistic" and strategic. With only one territory, you don't own any resources to maintain a big army. Without resources you can't expect to raise new troops.

That's if we are being realistic, which is exactly what the suggestion tries to achieve.

I understand this cannot be of the like of everybody. That's why I suggest it as an option.

[SuicidalSnowman]

This is an interesting idea. I think it would make a great option, although I am utterly hopeless in actually seeing it implemented.

I think the biggest concern is working out the numbers. It needs to be a low enough army count to make it matter, but not too high as to make it prohibitive.

[Woodruff]

But what of the situation where you've been decimated down to one territory. So you go into stack-mode. By your reckoning, they should never be able to gain any armies? I don't personally believe that is a good thing.

Of course they shouldn't. That's the whole point of the suggestion.

So you want to put players into a situation where they are in the game but have absolutely no way of winning that game. And you believe this will make players happy and they won't deadbeat because of it.

Because I've gotta tell you, this will absolutely cause deadbeats, and probably a lot of them. I'd just as soon my games weren't all slowed down to a crawl.

[OliverFA]

So you want to put players into a situation where they are in the game but have absolutely no way of winning that game. And you believe this will make players happy and they won't deadbeat because of it.

Because I've gotta tell you, this will absolutely cause deadbeats, and probably a lot of them. I'd just as soon my games weren't all slowed down to a crawl.

I'll repeat what I said.

I understand this cannot be of the like of everybody. That's why I suggest it as an option.

On the other hand, they would have a bigger chance of wining the game than with the current system. With the current system, when the game becomes still and nobody does anything, players tend to have a troop number directly proportional to their reinforcement income. In that situation, with the new rules the proportion would be the same except that the equilibrium point woul be reached sooner. Then, as the decimated player would have an army bigger than what his single territory can hold, it would mean that his army is proportionally bigger than without upkeep limit.

[OliverFA]

This is an interesting idea. I think it would make a great option, although I am utterly hopeless in actually seeing it implemented.

Thanks! I am afraid I agree with you I don't have much hopes on it becoming implemented even if it was accepted. But I have been thinking about for long time at decided to make the suggestion just in case.

I think the biggest concern is working out the numbers. It needs to be a low enough army count to make it matter, but not too high as to make it prohibitive.

You said it! It's a matter of balancing and finding the sweet spot.

[Dako]

But what of the situation where you've been decimated down to one territory. So you go into stack-mode. By your reckoning, they should never be able to gain any armies? I don't personally believe that is a good thing.

Of course they shouldn't. That's the whole point of the suggestion.

So you want to put players into a situation where they are in the game but have absolutely no way of winning that game. And you believe this will make players happy and they won't deadbeat because of it.

Because I've gotta tell you, this will absolutely cause deadbeats, and probably a lot of them. I'd just as soon my games weren't all slowed down to a crawl.

Then you must use your little stack and attack out. Also, it will work ok with spoils. And also - do not like the game type? Do not join the game. As simple as that.

[OliverFA]

But what of the situation where you've been decimated down to one territory. So you go into stack-mode. By your reckoning, they should never be able to gain any armies? I don't personally believe that is a good thing.

Of course they shouldn't. That's the whole point of the suggestion.

So you want to put players into a situation where they are in the game but have absolutely no way of winning that game. And you believe this will make players happy and they won't deadbeat because of it.

Because I've gotta tell you, this will absolutely cause deadbeats, and probably a lot of them. I'd just as soon my games weren't all slowed down to a crawl.

Then you must use your little stack and attack out. Also, it will work ok with spoils. And also - do not like the game type? Do not join the game. As simple as that.

Yes. I think I did not say it. But spoils are not affected by the upkeep limit. This makes them more important. If people want to play a "pure" upkeep game then they should play without spoils.

[Woodruff]

But what of the situation where you've been decimated down to one territory. So you go into stack-mode. By your reckoning, they should never be able to gain any armies? I don't personally believe that is a good thing.

Of course they shouldn't. That's the whole point of the suggestion.

So you want to put players into a situation where they are in the game but have absolutely no way of winning that game. And you believe this will make players happy and they won't deadbeat because of it.

Because I've gotta tell you, this will absolutely cause deadbeats, and probably a lot of them. I'd just as soon my games weren't all slowed down to a crawl.

Then you must use your little stack and attack out.

So then "suiciding" will now be sanctioned by the site. Interesting.

Also, it will work ok with spoils. And also - do not like the game type? Do not join the game. As simple as that.

As simple as that? By that logic, there is no setting suggestion that should not be implemented. Why are they being rejected?

[OliverFA]

Woodruff, you did not read the explanation I gave you. I'll write it again.

Take a "current" game that becomes stalled. Let's imagine that 4 players have 10, 9, 8 and 3 reinforcements income. If they just reinforce for 100 turns, they will have 1000, 900, 800 and 300 armies plus what they had at the begining. The more time this situation lasts, the more the armies proportion resembles the reinforcement proportion.

With the upkeep setting, the situation is very similar. Let's take the medium setting. Once the upkeep limit is reached, armies will be 100, 90, 80 and 30. The proportion will be exactly the same.

If the player with just one territory has, let's say, a 60 size army he has saved and retreated with, the proportion will be the double of what he would have by upkeep limits. So, this setting is actually helping players with big armies that lose their territories. They keep their big armies and their opponents can't grow forever.

We are not saying that any setting should be implemented just because it is optional. That would be going to one extreme. But you also can't go to the other extreme and treat this setting as if it was compulsory to each and every player. The things is that some settings make sense and would be enjoyable by a part of the players (a big part) and for that reason it makes sense implementing it. It is good for that big part, and it does not affect the other (also big) part because it is optional. What does not make sense is implementing things that nobody wants.

To be honest, I am very open to constructive suggestions (I have demonstrated it during the years I am here) but I dislike argument just for argument's sake.

[OliverFA]

About the early turns and players with few territories issue

I have been thinking about the two biggest issues that have appeared with this proposal, which are in fact related.

One issue is that in some maps, players get their income reduced even in the first turn. The other issue is that when they are reduced to 9 or less territories, their armies can't grow beyond 15/30/60 (depending on the setting).

After carefully thinking about it, I think it makes sense, and that's how the setting should work. At the begining of the game the player has an army similar to what he can afford. For that reason he receives little income or no income. Also, if the player has to retreat to one single territory, he has an army much bigger than what his limited resources can afford. For that reason he can not expect to receive more armies.

Also, as I have described above, this rewards players that retire before losing all their armies, as they keep a decent army and their opponents can't grow forever.

However, if those two issues really worried a majority of the people, a small correction could be done. This correction would be to set minimum armies number to the same number as minimum reinforcements (3 in classic and also in most maps). This small correction would be in line with existing CC tradition, and would not be such a big deal for the upkeep essence because is a very small quantity.

If that makes people more comfortable about this setting, I am willing to accept it. However, it should be clear that this is the feeling for the majority of people, because if it is only a few people, then I prefer to place the minimum at 0.

[TheForgivenOne]

I personally don't like it, don't know why, just really don't.

[Queen_Herpes]

I really like this idea and with all the comments in just a few days, I nominate it for sticky status