[Suggestion] Limited Marshal Slots SOLVED

[Sultan Mubashar]

I am proposing a mechanism to solve the issue of marshal counts due to the limited no. of slots in Royal Court.

Apart from marshals in royal court, all cities must have up to 4 slots for Army Generals to be hired; One for the  defense of City garrison, One for the defending mosque/monastery, One for the defending farm And one for defending coastal village/port in case of raids. Player/AI should recruit separate armies for each generals just like they do for marshals.

The difference between marshals and generals is that generals should only be able to defend lands in case of siege/raids while marshals can do both, attack enemy lands as well as defend their own lands along with generals. Player can not control movements of generals army on the map. In case of raids, respective general army will automatically move to the farm/monastery/coastal village being raided where they engage battle with enemy then player can control the army in the battle just like any other marshal army. After battle, if successful, general army automatically moves to the respective city. In case of unsuccessful battle, slot becomes empty in city slot and new general should be hired. This concept share its similarities with the jihad mechanism already present in the old game but with advanced work around.

This idea makes sense because the major issue with having limited marshals is to defend against raiding.  It becomes difficult to impossible for anyone to defend their lands when kingdom becomes large specially farms/mosques/coastal villages.

The idea of non-marshal knights of the royal court leading army makes no sense at all. By the way who have seen diplomats/merchants leading armies to fight enemies in the battles in history? This game is great prospect. Don't spoil it.

[Lighthope]

6 hours ago, Sultan Mubashar said:

I am proposing a mechanism to solve the issue of marshal counts due to the limited no. of slots in Royal Court.

Apart from marshals in royal court, all cities must have up to 4 slots for Army Generals to be hired; One for the  defense of City garrison, One for the defending mosque/monastery, One for the defending farm And one for defending coastal village/port in case of raids. Player/AI should recruit separate armies for each generals just like they do for marshals.

<snip>

This idea makes sense because the major issue with having limited marshals is to defend against raiding.  It becomes difficult to impossible for anyone to defend their lands when kingdom becomes large specially farms/mosques/coastal villages.

I never had any problem defending my land with the limited number of marshals.  It forces you to make a choice.  Keep some of your marshals to stamp out problems back home, or take your chance and send them all out to expand the kingdom.

Cities already have a garrison available to them.  They don't need knights added to that.  You can choose to rely on the garrison or back them up with reinforcements from an available marshal.

[Sultan Mubashar]

12 hours ago, Lighthope said:

I never had any problem defending my land with the limited number of marshals.  It forces you to make a choice.  Keep some of your marshals to stamp out problems back home, or take your chance and send them all out to expand the kingdom.

Cities already have a garrison available to them.  They don't need knights added to that.  You can choose to rely on the garrison or back them up with reinforcements from an available marshal.

No. of armies of a smallest kingdom = No. of armies of a largest kingdom = Unrealistic = LoL = Big PROBLEM

[Sharokhan]

On 4/15/2020 at 7:32 AM, Sultan Mubashar said:

I am proposing a mechanism to solve the issue of marshal counts due to the limited no. of slots in Royal Court.

Apart from marshals in royal court, all cities must have up to 4 slots for Army Generals to be hired; One for the  defense of City garrison, One for the defending mosque/monastery, One for the defending farm And one for defending coastal village/port in case of raids. Player/AI should recruit separate armies for each generals just like they do for marshals.

The difference between marshals and generals is that generals should only be able to defend lands in case of siege/raids while marshals can do both, attack enemy lands as well as defend their own lands along with generals. Player can not control movements of generals army on the map. In case of raids, respective general army will automatically move to the farm/monastery/coastal village being raided where they engage battle with enemy then player can control the army in the battle just like any other marshal army. After battle, if successful, general army automatically moves to the respective city. In case of unsuccessful battle, slot becomes empty in city slot and new general should be hired. This concept share its similarities with the jihad mechanism already present in the old game but with advanced work around.

This idea makes sense because the major issue with having limited marshals is to defend against raiding.  It becomes difficult to impossible for anyone to defend their lands when kingdom becomes large specially farms/mosques/coastal villages.

The idea of non-marshal knights of the royal court leading army makes no sense at all. By the way who have seen diplomats/merchants leading armies to fight enemies in the battles in history? This game is great prospect. Don't spoil it.

This is a great idea. I don't like the idea of spies and merchants leading armies, but 4 general/captain slots for each city is a great way for the developers to provide the players with additional defense roles without adding additional positions to the royal court, and without adding spies and merchants to lead armies. 

[Zerg]

I'm sorry but that's a horrible idea. Lets just assume someones is attacking a province of mine. Normally we attack with 1 to 2 armies and sometimes the defender has an army in the province aswell (maybe even 2). Now with 4 additional entities on the map (the 4 generals) we would have 6 to 8 armies on the world map. This would be a nightmare to manage. It was already hard to manage your armies to attack the same target if enemy armys were close togehter, this would just destroy any fun in controlling armies on the world map.

[Lighthope]

11 hours ago, Sultan Mubashar said:

No. of armies of a smallest kingdom = No. of armies of a largest kingdom = Unrealistic = LoL = Big PROBLEM

Realistically, there has to be a limit in place or big kingdoms would just stomp on small ones.  Yes, that happened in real life, but in a game there needs to be some limit or the game loses its challenge.

[Topinambur]

On 4/15/2020 at 2:32 PM, Sultan Mubashar said:

I am proposing a mechanism to solve the issue of marshal counts due to the limited no. of slots in Royal Court.

Apart from marshals in royal court, all cities must have up to 4 slots for Army Generals to be hired; One for the  defense of City garrison, One for the defending mosque/monastery, One for the defending farm And one for defending coastal village/port in case of raids. Player/AI should recruit separate armies for each generals just like they do for marshals.

The difference between marshals and generals is that generals should only be able to defend lands in case of siege/raids while marshals can do both, attack enemy lands as well as defend their own lands along with generals. Player can not control movements of generals army on the map. In case of raids, respective general army will automatically move to the farm/monastery/coastal village being raided where they engage battle with enemy then player can control the army in the battle just like any other marshal army. After battle, if successful, general army automatically moves to the respective city. In case of unsuccessful battle, slot becomes empty in city slot and new general should be hired. This concept share its similarities with the jihad mechanism already present in the old game but with advanced work around.

This idea makes sense because the major issue with having limited marshals is to defend against raiding.  It becomes difficult to impossible for anyone to defend their lands when kingdom becomes large specially farms/mosques/coastal villages.

The idea of non-marshal knights of the royal court leading army makes no sense at all. By the way who have seen diplomats/merchants leading armies to fight enemies in the battles in history? This game is great prospect. Don't spoil it.

That’s a great idea, yet I would have loved to see one tiny tweak as to make it a little more balanced. What if these local commanders (e.g. captain, general) would be only approaching peasant rebels in the area? I believe it would be too overpowered if commanders would fight all disturbers in their respective lands. I reckon that invading alien marshals as well as famous rebels should be fought with other RC members only.

[Lighthope]

9 hours ago, Topinambur said:

What if these local commanders (e.g. captain, general) would be only approaching peasant rebels in the area?

Then there would be no point in having a marshal stay behind to protect your kingdom.  They could just all be out there expanding the empire.

The OP's idea removes a strategic choice the player has to make.

[Topinambur]

2 hours ago, Lighthope said:

Then there would be no point in having a marshal stay behind to protect your kingdom.  They could just all be out there expanding the empire.

The OP's idea removes a strategic choice the player has to make.

On “hard” a player should still leave a marshal in the rear, since majority of rebellions arising are lead by famous rebels and thus the local commander won’t handle them. Like I’ve specified above, local commanders should better only be able to deal with pesky peasant rebels, not the famous ones. 

[Sultan Mubashar]

On 4/16/2020 at 11:56 PM, Lighthope said:

Realistically, there has to be a limit in place or big kingdoms would just stomp on small ones.  Yes, that happened in real life, but in a game there needs to be some limit or the game loses its challenge.

Atleast one army commander per city (if four will cause gameplay balancing issues) should be implemented which will enhance gameplay without any balancing issues. That commander will be responsible to keep the city AREA safe from the wandering and raiding enemies. AREA includes border covered by that city which also includes any mosque, farm and/or coastal village associated with that city. Enemies can be enemy knights and rebels.

To answer your issue regarding balancing, my proposal actually enhances the strategic elements of war and deception mechanics of gameplay which relates to actual history too. To weaken the enemy garrison;

1): Send one of your knight to raid the farms, city will send its army commander with some army to help against the raid. Go and siege the town with other knights as army commander is busy in fighting against raids. Can't we relate this to actual medieval warfare tactics???

2): Ignite rebellion and wait for a rebel to emerge in the targeted city area, go and siege the town while local commander is busy in fighting with rebels. Can't we see some history involved in this too???

[Lighthope]

5 hours ago, Sultan Mubashar said:

Atleast one army commander per city (if four will cause gameplay balancing issues) should be implemented which will enhance gameplay without any balancing issues. That commander will be responsible to keep the city AREA safe from the wandering and raiding enemies. AREA includes border covered by that city which also includes any mosque, farm and/or coastal village associated with that city. Enemies can be enemy knights and rebels.

To answer your issue regarding balancing, my proposal actually enhances the strategic elements of war and deception mechanics of gameplay which relates to actual history too. To weaken the enemy garrison;

1): Send one of your knight to raid the farms, city will send its army commander with some army to help against the raid. Go and siege the town with other knights as army commander is busy in fighting against raids. Can't we relate this to actual medieval warfare tactics???

2): Ignite rebellion and wait for a rebel to emerge in the targeted city area, go and siege the town while local commander is busy in fighting with rebels. Can't we see some history involved in this too???

I still stand against this idea.  If your cities have their own knights, there is no reason to keep a Marshall or two behind to protect your kingdom.

It removes a strategic choice a player has to make.  Your way is more historical, but it isn't as challenging, game-wise.

[Topinambur]

3 hours ago, Lighthope said:

I still stand against this idea.  If your cities have their own knights, there is no reason to keep a Marshall or two behind to protect your kingdom.

It removes a strategic choice a player has to make.  Your way is more historical, but it isn't as challenging, game-wise.

Sir, I don’t meant to slight, however I can’t refrain from interjecting a remark on your statement.

Strategic choice to ... to what? When your kingdom is over 40 states, it doesn’t stand possible to cover all area against rebellions. Given the number of lords in the royal court, a player can have 6 marshals at maximum. If a player aren’t playing on easy, invasions to other territories would need at least 3-4 marshals to advance. It leaves a player with 2 to 3 marshals to reallocate them for defence purposes. Again, given the scale of empire of 40+ states that would be a Benny-Hill-like show, trying to eliminate rebels as they would be long gone by the time even the fastest marshal with light cavalry and “strategist” lvl 3 would arrive from his seat at the rear.

I foresee you might suggest, as a matter of choice, not to have wars with anyone and control your kingdom instead. Good luck defending your kingdom against spies that other kingdoms would send you while looking at your ripe empire with ulterior animosity. Or if not expanding, then what’s the point in playing the game and how do you, Sir, suggest to win? How can one build a powerful monarchy on the sub 6 land kingdom?

The idea to bring a local commander is a good idea, yet not in the current iteration, as proposed by original poster. However, I believe there could be some balancing done to make it plausible. E.g.: high upkeep cost of such a commander and his fewer troops (as they shouldn’t be as big as marshal’s); palpable cooldown on commander’s respawn if his squad snuffed it; if commander leaves the town to chase a rebel, then he should be using garrison troops to take with him, thus leaving the city vulnerable for alien marshal‘s or famous rebel’s attack on the city (which they tend to do on hard difficulty); etc.

Given enough time and willingness to find a solution for the commander’s implementation, it is possible to find more suitable options for good balancing.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Topinambur
I had to underline key statement in my post

[Lighthope]

3 hours ago, Topinambur said:

Sir, I don’t meant to slight, however I can’t refrain from interjecting a remark on your statement.

Strategic choice to ... to what? When your kingdom is over 40 states, it doesn’t stand possible to cover all area against rebellions. Given the number of lords in the royal court, a player can have 6 marshals at maximum. If a player aren’t playing on easy, invasions to other territories would need at least 3-4 marshals to advance. It leaves a player with 2 to 3 marshals to reallocate them for defence purposes. Again, given the scale of empire of 40+ states that would be a Benny-Hill-like show, trying to eliminate rebels as they would be long gone by the time even the fastest marshal with light cavalry and “strategist” lvl 3 would arrive from his seat at the rear.

 

I've played in hard mode.  I know the dance. Yes, rebels pop up all over the place, and you are constantly sending your rear guard marshals to stamp out the fires.  So you make a strategic choice to either put more marshals in the rear or run your minimal rear forces all over the place.

The problem with knights, as I said, is that you can now have your entire force marching forward with no thought to the rear.  Your home guards will take care of that.

That makes for very boring gameplay.  It's a constant looking-forward way of playing the game.  Looking to conquer your next territory.   You have no reason to look back, shuffle your forces, think about whether you want to continue to expand or reinforce your kingdom.

There is no strategic thought necessary when you don't have to worry about your rear guard.

The bottom line is: When you have town knights as is being suggested, you have no reason to defend your territory.  Knights of Honour already has a garrison that defends the town.  Letting them sally forth makes them overpowered.

[Topinambur]

3 hours ago, Lighthope said:

You have no reason to look back, shuffle your forces, think about whether you want to continue to expand or reinforce your kingdom.

Sir, you seem to ignore the suggestion I’ve outlined or you don’t follow the difference between simple rebels and famous rebels: the local knight shouldn’t be able to approach famous rebels and enemy marshals. Don’t you recon it’s too much sending a marshal to deal with regular rebels consisting of peasant troops? If marshal has to deal with the serious danger in the rear than let it be famous rebel who has cavalry and archers or shall it be another country’s marshal.

I perfectly realise that I’m a stickler for something that isn’t there yet. Most likely that this mechanic will never make it to the second game. However, speaking of having a game mechanic that takes care of simple rebels in the rear and ignores complex threats (e.g. alien marshal and famous rebels) to let the player deal with them manually - would have been a great gameplay tool.

Sir, do you understand where I’m coming from now? Do you understand the idea I’m trying to insinuate, that there is a difference between “neighbourhood knight deals with all threats” and “neighbourhood knight deals with simple peasant rebels”?

[Sultan Mubashar]

6 hours ago, Lighthope said:

I've played in hard mode.  I know the dance. Yes, rebels pop up all over the place, and you are constantly sending your rear guard marshals to stamp out the fires.  So you make a strategic choice to either put more marshals in the rear or run your minimal rear forces all over the place.

The problem with knights, as I said, is that you can now have your entire force marching forward with no thought to the rear.  Your home guards will take care of that.

That makes for very boring gameplay.  It's a constant looking-forward way of playing the game.  Looking to conquer your next territory.   You have no reason to look back, shuffle your forces, think about whether you want to continue to expand or reinforce your kingdom.

There is no strategic thought necessary when you don't have to worry about your rear guard.

The bottom line is: When you have town knights as is being suggested, you have no reason to defend your territory.  Knights of Honour already has a garrison that defends the town.  Letting them sally forth makes them overpowered.

Anyhow KOH2 needs the feature of local army commander. What can they do is make it configureable in option settings so that players can enable /disable this feature according to their preferences.

I bet Lighthope may be the very first player who will be playing the game with this feature enabled. LoL...

[Topinambur]

1 hour ago, Sultan Mubashar said:

Anyhow KOH2 needs the feature of local army commander. What can they do is make it configureable in option settings so that players can enable /disable this feature according to their preferences.

I bet Lighthope may be the very first player who will be playing the game with this feature enabled. LoL...

This. Or make the feature of having a local commander available only for easy mode, leaving normal mode arbitrary to this parameter and disabling it on hard mode.

[Lighthope]

9 hours ago, Topinambur said:

This. Or make the feature of having a local commander available only for easy mode, leaving normal mode arbitrary to this parameter and disabling it on hard mode.

I could live with that.  Make it available only in easy mode.

[THQN Brad]

Moving thread to GD forums

[StenSture]

The limited slots for the court were one of the two things I loved the most with the original KOH. You had to plan where to keep you limited number of marchals etc.

The other thing that I loved and has not seen in similar games is the need to consider your logistics. That when you sent your army, you had to consider for how long the "food" would last, plan your way to get more food and get the fighting done before your troops started to starve.

sheers/S