Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 111
  1. #1

    Clash of Kingdoms Changes Preliminary ideas

    I don't plan to change the auction part of it much but the matches themselves will be totally different.

    There will be 7 kingdoms.

    Qin, Chu, Qi, Zhao, Wei, Yan, Han.

    Unlike how COK was previously this time you can have multiple wars at once. For the sake of simplicity lets say up to two wars max.

    Random Parameters

    Battle size will be random: 50k skirmish, 100k mid size war, 200k large scale war, 300k all out war or something like that.

    Opponent will be random.

    Location will be random

    The war can be offensive, defensive or neutral.

    Now this is when it gets interesting. You will have to fight on multiple fronts so you cannot just put all your generals into one basket.

    There are severe repercussions for lets say putting Heki alone in charge of a 300k army. You will get crushed pretty badly and your kingdom will suffer.

    The matches will be simple. A one paragraph strategy, deployment and nothing else. People will vote, give a reason (doesn't have to be complex) and will say how decisively one person won the war. Based on the results one kingdom will gain things and another will lose things.

    Every kingdom could start off with something like:

    Prestige: 10
    Soldiers: 10
    Wealth: 10
    Territory: 10

    In an offensive battle you can't lose territory but it will be harder to win.

    I also want to add a "loyalty" stat. Basically guys like Ousen, Gekishin and Kanki can be persuaded more easily to join another kingdom. If your kingdom is weak for example and you suffer a bad defeat they may defect.

    This is it for now. I will round this up more later. I think killing generals could also be a thing too and maybe politicians can be involved.

  2. #2
    Crispinianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    35,908
    This is the Kingdoms route we considered before taking the Tournament route for the sake of simplicity. Honestly, I've always liked this more (details to be discussed of course) but what's hard is to keep seven members involved for a longer and more effort-taking game.

  3. #3
    probably doesn't have to be 7 state. just make it 3-4. if there's more participants, then make a team of 2-3 person to take control of the state. new guys can join in midway or people who's busy can switch out with newer people (or it's okay if there's still someone in that team)

    then make grid like this: (just rough example)
    https://paxsims.files.wordpress.com/...c169697_lg.jpg
    to see where your state border and where you want to attack/defend

  4. #4
    White gold Void's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    42,933
    I was thinking we'd start off small, like each player gets 25k or so troops and a small budget to buy generals, you'd get more points for the budget to buy more generals as you win more battles and such. You'd be building your "state" and you can fight with others like you proposed here. It'd be kinda like a roleplay thing as well.

  5. #5
    ^
    need more details on how to get money for the budget. but interesting idea

  6. #6
    White gold Void's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    42,933
    Quote Originally Posted by gn_x00 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ^
    need more details on how to get money for the budget. but interesting idea
    points would be money, but we could easily replace points with money instead.

    For getting it: win matches, achieve certain goals in battles, collect stipends/taxes from your territories etc.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Void View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    points would be money, but we could easily replace points with money instead.

    For getting it: win matches, achieve certain goals in battles, collect stipends/taxes from your territories etc.
    was thinking on other thing when I posted that lol. but yeah.. I mean how to get points

    if it was only "win matches", then the rich will be richer and the poor will be poorer.
    not to mention we might need to consider perma death for generals (since some guys love to do suicidal charge)

  8. #8
    White gold Void's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    42,933
    Quote Originally Posted by gn_x00 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    was thinking on other thing when I posted that lol. but yeah.. I mean how to get points

    if it was only "win matches", then the rich will be richer and the poor will be poorer.
    not to mention we might need to consider perma death for generals (since some guys love to do suicidal charge)
    The objective will fix that, you could have a guy win matches through brute strength but a player get loads of points by playing it strategically

    We could do contracts like sports I guess

  9. #9
    White gold Void's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    42,933
    Cmon guys, lets think of something

  10. #10
    White gold Void's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    42,933
    @Crispinianus; now's the time for ideas bolid

  11. #11
    Crispinianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    35,908
    There's something more important to fix before getting adventurous.

    People don't vote at matches.

    We can either discuss it here, or on a dedicated thread, but it's priority.

  12. #12
    White gold Void's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    42,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispinianus View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There's something more important to fix before getting adventurous.

    People don't vote at matches.

    We can either discuss it here, or on a dedicated thread, but it's priority.
    What do you think the reasons are for that? I'd say it's because people don't want to read strats now, even though we trimmed them down. I agree with felix, lets just have a general strategy paragraph with 4-5 sentences and a deployment pic with troop numbers.

  13. #13
    Crispinianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    35,908
    That's exactly it, yeah, but about the solution I'm dubious.

    Come on, make a thread. I want to see what the others think and drop down some black on white things.

  14. #14
    White gold Void's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    42,933
    Why can't we talk about it here, why another thread?

  15. #15
    Crispinianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    35,908
    We keep this fur the Kingdoms version planning. No good to mix up issues when they're so different.

  16. #16
    A maximum of 3 paragraphs(300 words or less per paragraph) should do the trick.

    Have them type it through word doc for accuracy otherwise disqualification.

  17. #17
    Crispinianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    35,908
    Strats would be too unclear. And nobody likes walls of raw text, that's why we thought to make it based more on pics and bullet point lists. I don't think we should change this philosophy.

  18. #18
    White gold Void's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    42,933
    It would depend on more in character actions and less on specific actions but if we take out the paragraph and use only clauses, it would look like the army is a ragtag band instead of a unified group.

  19. #19
    Crispinianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    35,908
    People actually voted in the second edition. And the strat system was very similar to the current one.

    Can you figure why?

  20. #20
    Clauses are far too tedious tbh. I am done reading them.

    I would be ok with 1-3 paragraphs. As long as it can be read pretty quickly and not be a hassle.

    Clauses were a cheap way to control dumb characters or make them do ooc things anyway, if you don't want a dumb character to do something dumb, have a smart general that is capable of reigning them in or don't get the dumb character in the first place.

    Now how would you guys like to change up the system.

    Do you guys like the idea of multiple wars going at once?

    How about potential perma death for characters or characters defecting?

    Not sure how I would do the kingdom stats thing. We could just rate a kingdom by power I guess and make everyone start off with 50 instead of
    Prestige: 10
    Soldiers: 10
    Wealth: 10
    Territory: 10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •