Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 240
  1. #1

    CyK 4.5 feedback thread

    I know the Nord/Alias match hasn't started yet but while we are waiting: post your feedback here, from criticism, thoughts, improvements, etc about this game.

    I'll provide a survey to break the ice:

    1)Best player overall?
    2)Player that gave the best fights (not necessary best player or had the best strat, but his strat gave the opposing player the most trouble)
    3)Best player strategist?
    4)Best match?
    5)Best strat?
    6)Hardest character to face?
    7)Hardest team to face?
    8)Your favorite character on your team?
    9)How was the hosting?
    10)Best debater (or wanker )?

    My answers:
    1)gn, played very well, stomped his block matches and almost got me with his strat in the finals
    2)Nord, gave me and felix one hell of a fight
    3)Jjcb
    4)Nord vs felix, oh my
    5)I was a huge fan of my Jjcb strats but gn's Alias strat was near flawless
    6)I'd have to say Ouki, I had to stack my charge just in case he was with Houken
    7)felix, that one was a headache
    8)I liked most of them but I'd have to say Moubu for reliability and Rinko for versatility.
    9)I'd have to say I was somewhat sluggish, but definitely way more lenient than last game, which prolonged the game overall
    10)I was best wanker

    The Glorious Fellowship of the Round Jacuzzi:
    https://i.imgur.com/tDbgtsy.jpg

  2. #2
    Crispickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    45,218
    1)gnx cuz he's the one who screwed up the least throughout the whole game
    2)Probably Nord, yeah
    3)Void
    4)The finale wasn't close but it was enjoyable. Or Nord vs Void maybe.
    5)Alias' in Alias vs Jjcb
    6)
    7)
    8)
    9)worst parts were probably me posting the strats the day of never
    10)gnx


  3. #3
    1)Best player overall?
    Probably Void if we don't count Jjcb match

    2)Player that gave the best fights (not necessary best player or had the best strat, but his strat gave the opposing player the most trouble)
    Nord when he try

    3)Best player strategist?
    Only one

    4)Best match?
    Nord vs Felix

    5)Best strat?
    Maybe Nord's when he fight Felix

    6)Hardest character to face?
    Moubu.

    7)Hardest team to face?
    Void. The team is simply stacked. Alias team might be a close second if he utilize his pieces better

    8)Your favorite character on your team?
    None tbh

    9)How was the hosting?
    Don't have any comparison, but there aren't much problem I guess. So it's okay?

    10)Best debater?
    Probably me

    - - - Updated - - -

    Btw, for the game I think we should implement the suggestion in last game (from Alias) about people can only silent bid for character that they have bid in normal auction phase

    And just delete the concept of elites. They don't matter that much..


    What about using leftover points to buy troops type instead?
    We start with 300.000 basic infantry (light infantry).
    You can buy each for 1 point:
    - change 50.000 basic infantry into cavalry
    - 50.000 heavy infantry
    - 25.000 heavy cavalry
    - 10.000 chariots
    - 25.000 Mountain Men (need Ordo or Yotanwa)
    - 25.000 Bandits (need Kanki or the bandit commander)

    Haven't put much thought on it tbh, but something like that. I'm thinking we'll have 3 bonus point that at the very least you can have 150 infantry and 150 cavalry to work with
    Ofc we can add something like Zhao's fast cavalry or Gekishin's poison dog cats or Elephant and GHM's crossbows with requirement if you think it's a good idea


    too complicated.

    probably just erase elites except "mountain men", "bandits", "chariots" and etc things "crossbow/elephants"
    Last edited by gn_x00; 02-21-2017 at 05:30 AM.

  4. #4
    1)Best player overall?
    Void had a stacked team, moreso than mine strats weren't bad too.

    2)Player that gave the best fights (not necessary best player or had the best strat, but his strat gave the opposing player the most trouble)
    I guess Nord.

    3)Best player strategist?
    Either Void or gn both had detailed strats though it could get tedious.

    4)Best match?
    Nord vs me

    5)Best strat?
    Not sure

    6)Hardest character to face?
    Ouki/Renpa

    7)Hardest team to face?
    Void he got a lot of guys for cheap.

    8)Your favorite character on your team?
    Ouki.

    9)How was the hosting?
    It was fine. Strat posting took too long though

    10)Best debater (or wanker )?
    GN and Void are both high level wankers

    I would say something has to be done with strats still. People don't want to read them.

    And for elites maybe reduce the cost since they don't seem to have huge impact anyway. 1 point for 1000. I still think they can be useful if utilized correctly.

  5. #5
    I agree that people don't have time/don't want to read wall of text is a problem

    but well.. in a game like this which is based on text, a wall of text is kinda expected imo

    i haven't see any good alternative, but the easiest one is by lowering the scale of the game (less general involved each match)

    people complaint that they don't like vague strats, but you can't really make a detailed one if we limit the word too much lol

  6. #6
    Crispickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    45,218
    Corners were a great tool tbh. It's the only thing that doesn't reduce the depth but still increases readability of a ton, thanks to graphics and a sorta impartial analysis. I have no idea how to implement this without committing a poster to a shitload of work though.

    We need to go back to 200k vs 200k, if not less. 300k were an exaggeration and I don't know how we decided to go that route to begin with.

    Also, the separation of troops in infantry, cavalry, archers and whatnot is pointless. Adds lines and lines to strats without anyone to care. We didn't have it back in CyK2 unless a player wanted to be specific for a ploy of theirs, and it doesn't seem to me strats lost anything by keeping the equipment generic as default.

    With this strat layout we're back at the CyK1 issue, which is too much free text and too little structure. General strat must be ESSENTIAL, it shall merely provide the keys to breeze through the clauses/instructions without thinking too much on how to make the puzzle parts match with each other. I'm all in for going back to that layout.

    What else? The stalemate problem, I guess. A lot of time ago, I proposed to associate objectives with maps, but honestly I don't know how much of a good idea it can be. It's too up to luck, and this would be the only luck factor in a game that doesn't have any. I'd like to keep it pure as it is. If you have a way to implement campaign objectives without including a luck factor, I'll hear you out.

    Prep revealed to be more useless than predicted, given how it is limited to starting positions. I'm ok for both keeping it or removing it to make the strats lighter. As you guy prefer.

    Idk if there's much else.


  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispinianus View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Corners were a great tool tbh. It's the only thing that doesn't reduce the depth but still increases readability of a ton, thanks to graphics and a sorta impartial analysis. I have no idea how to implement this without committing a poster to a shitload of work though.

    We need to go back to 200k vs 200k, if not less. 300k were an exaggeration and I don't know how we decided to go that route to begin with.
    agreed with this... but corners seems time consuming for whoever post it eh...

    I wonder if we can make do with host/whoever have the job make a basic combined map of the two strats...

    Like who is in where postion and where they plan to go at time 0

    Also, the separation of troops in infantry, cavalry, archers and whatnot is pointless. Adds lines and lines to strats without anyone to care. We didn't have it back in CyK2 unless a player wanted to be specific for a ploy of theirs, and it doesn't seem to me strats lost anything by keeping the equipment generic as default.
    the only problem right now that i see is that there's no ruling at all lol.

    I agree that keeping the default (no specification at all) would be the best.. maybe just archers if somehow you want to use them to do something like defending from a mountain/ledge etc.

    With this strat layout we're back at the CyK1 issue, which is too much free text and too little structure. General strat must be ESSENTIAL, it shall merely provide the keys to breeze through the clauses/instructions without thinking too much on how to make the puzzle parts match with each other. I'm all in for going back to that layout.
    i dunno what we should do with general strat, but I think for a start, using the general/team leader name instead of Team A, B, C, D or Team cross, line, circle, square would be easier to be read since people won't need to keep scrolling up to see who are in the said Team.

    maybe it's just me, but i find it harder to read them

    Prep revealed to be more useless than predicted, given how it is limited to starting positions. I'm ok for both keeping it or removing it to make the strats lighter. As you guy prefer.

    Idk if there's much else.
    sometimes you can cook up something with them, but yeah, most of the time they are useless.

    although i dunno.. the final i'm being lazy and decide not to segregate my main army and apparently it kinda cost a lot since people is thinking they need to go around together or something

    I dunno if we can slash too much of it when voters (those who read anyway) keep complaining to not make things vague lol
    Last edited by gn_x00; 02-20-2017 at 08:13 AM.

  8. #8
    Crispickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    45,218
    Quote Originally Posted by gn_x00 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    agreed with this... but corners seems time consuming for whoever post it eh...
    That's the biggest obstacle, I know. I'd honestly take care of it if I wasn't so busy.

    I wonder if we can make do with host/whoever have the job make a basic combined map of the two strats...

    Like who is in where postion and where they plan to go at time 0
    It's pretty legitimate, and I remember cases when this happened. If it's for the sake of being clear, I'd always prefer more pics rather than more words for a lot of more or less obvious reasons.

    I agree that keeping the default (no specification at all) would be the best.. maybe just archers if somehow you want to use them to do something like defending from a mountain/ledge etc.
    This.

    i dunno what we should do with general strat, but I think for a start, using the general/team leader name instead of Team A, B, C, D or Team cross, line, circle, square would be easier to be read since people won't need to keep scrolling up to see who are in the said Team.

    maybe it's just me, but i find it harder to read them
    This is up to the writer tbh. I've always called my armies with the name of the commander + "Army" or "Unit". Others don't, I guess it's because they're more comfortable with letters or task force styled names.

    although i dunno.. the final i'm being lazy and decide not to segregate my main army and apparently it kinda cost a lot since people is thinking they need to go around together or something

    I dunno if we can slash too much of it when voters (those who read anyway) keep complaining to not make things vague lol
    Being vague is a school of thought when writing strats. It has some advantages and it can backfire. Honestly I don't have a problem with it as long as the writer of the strat is aware of the risks he runs by taking this route.


  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispinianus View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's pretty legitimate, and I remember cases when this happened. If it's for the sake of being clear, I'd always prefer more pics rather than more words for a lot of more or less obvious reasons.
    but pics can't really say the detailed things lol..


    I dunno if this will be too limiting or not, but to keep it simple, how about this:

    1. lower the scale of the battle (200 vs 200 or 150 vs 150) as discussed

    2. you need to group up your generals if you have too many generals.. max 4 team should be reasonable no? (people already do this, but need to be confirmed for #4)

    3. 5-7 sentences for general strats on what you want to do. (like what we have now, but hopefully with bullet points instead of paragraph to make it easier to read)

    4. clause 2 sentences for each team (it's for the team instead of each general)

    5. 1 clause for preparation if necessary? (or should we trash this one since mostly useless anyway?)

    with this we'll ended up with the macro strategy instead of the micro management of each aspect of the battle. #4 will cut things by a lot if we ended up with 13+ generals
    Last edited by gn_x00; 02-20-2017 at 09:04 AM.

  10. #10
    Crispickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    45,218
    Quote Originally Posted by gn_x00 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    but pics can't really say the detailed things lol..

    I dunno if this will be too limiting or not, but to keep it simple, how about this:

    1. lower the scale of the battle (200 vs 200 or 150 vs 150) as discussed

    2. you need to group up your generals if you have too many generals.. max 4 team should be reasonable no? (people already do this, but need to be confirmed for #4)

    3. 5-7 sentences for general strats on what you want to do. (like what we have now, but please don't make a single senteces as long as we do now -mainly only me and Void tho~)

    4. clause 2 sentences for each team (it's for the team instead of each general)


    with this we'll ended up with the macro strategy instead of the micro management of each aspect of the battle. #4 will cut things by a lot if we ended up with 13+ generals
    All good except this:

    Especially if we group them together, we need to give them at least 3 clauses of instructions. For what I've experienced, 2 are limiting and you'd end up making them with absurd punctuation in order to make everything fit in.

    Max number of groups can exist but it can't be 4 then. 4 is really the average number of armies, we need to move the cap at least to 6 to stay comfortable.


  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispinianus View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    All good except this:

    Especially if we group them together, we need to give them at least 3 clauses of instructions. For what I've experienced, 2 are limiting and you'd end up making them with absurd punctuation in order to make everything fit in.

    Max number of groups can exist but it can't be 4 then. 4 is really the average number of armies, we need to move the cap at least to 6 to stay comfortable.
    uhm... if we limit things at 6, then people will just make 6 team and they will have 2 (or 3) x 6 = 12 (or 18) clause. 18 is already more than 1 clause per general lol and if it's 12, then it won't exactly reduce things....



    anyway, i don't remember that much people going with more than 4 team in CYK 4,5... the only one that i remember on top of my head is my first strat (if we go into detail since the left team is all over the place). so i figure 4 is okay since it's the average anyway.

    about things being limited... well... can't exactly deny that. I also don't like it, but figures it is needed to keep things simpler.
    that's why i say we might need to keep the micro stuffs out of the way.

    example my final match team general's clauses:
    - Karin
    Learn from scouts’ report about how the enemy moves and act accordingly (fortify river side if enemy comes from river side and/or prepare to defend from incoming land army if enemy comes from land)
    - Yotanwa
    Hear Karin’s instruction and work together with Kanmei (and other generals) to kill strong enemy generals
    - Kanmei
    Hear Karin’s instruction and work together with Yotanwa (and other generals) to kill strong enemy generals
    - Kanjou
    To help and ensure Kanmei & Yotanwa’s safety by securing escape routes in tight situations, interfering dangerous duels and giving his own life to save Kanmei & Yotanwa if needed.
    - Rinbukun
    Follow Karin’s instruction and help Karin & Yotanwa kill enemy generals.
    - Domon
    Act as a link from River team to Karin’s main army, ensuring reinforcement (if needed) won’t come too late
    - Kou Rigen
    Follow Karin’s instruction and help Kanmei & Yotanwa kill enemy generals
    it will ended up with:
    Karin, Kanmei & Yotanwa will attack land army first before going to attack incoming enemy from river.
    All other generals are to follow Karin's order as support and ensure the safety of those 3 as much as possible
    it might be a bit vague indeed... but it will make things way more simpler than before.

    and it's not like people is reading and think that the clause for lesser general is important
    Last edited by gn_x00; 02-20-2017 at 09:39 AM.

  12. #12
    Alright, since alias versus nord isn't happening, I'll give my thoughts.

    In regards to the strats, it's fine as is: deployment could be trimmed but that depends on the player however, 5-7 sentences for general strategy and only one clause per character is already short. Bar run on sentences, there's really no excuse in my mind to further trim these lest you risk a vague ass strat that will have players coming after you with walls of text (they'll do it anyways if you vote against them, but at least you have proof) for interpreting their strat in a way that's inconvenient to them. Depending on in character actions rather than a set general strategy is way too risky.

    Battle size: I don't mind trimming 300k to 200k or even 150k, doesn't really matter to me. For character pool, I'm only willing to trim it based on how many players play the game. Because even if you have 8 players play, there is always going to be someone with a big team because they're aiming for cheap mid/low tiers to fill their roles or someone over paid for top tiers and doesn't have points for others etc. With my game plan this game, I was expecting to overpay for people I really wanted and have a rather small team but I got a good amount of dudes for cheap. I don't think it's any use to trim it just for strat readability.

    I like prep, don't see how it's not useful if you don't run a brute force team. Just gotta be creative and keep possibility to execute in mind.

    elites are useful, especially if you have a non brute force unit like fast cavalry or poison guys. I mean, you can't expect to send mountain men or giant cavalry at Moubu/Houken and expect them to have an impact when they were shredded in the manga like nothing.

    If you want to address troop types, just have people go with a spread at the end of auction and then stick with it for the rest of the game. I also want to incorporate state type advantages.

    The Glorious Fellowship of the Round Jacuzzi:
    https://i.imgur.com/tDbgtsy.jpg

  13. #13
    The Dragon of Katsurahama Nordlending's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    9,891
    Need to look over the Martial fighter GG. As things currently stand it sounds like they can never be stopped unless you have a stronger guy to duel them. The tactical generals will always lose.

    It is balanced because they are worth far more than their counter
    part in the bidding, but I kind of find it boring.
    Last edited by Nordlending; 02-21-2017 at 11:54 PM.


    The real world is cold! The real world doesn't care about spirit! You want to be a hero? Then play the part and die like every other Huntsman in history! As for me, I'll do what I do best: lie, steal, cheat and survive!

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Void View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In regards to the strats, it's fine as is: deployment could be trimmed but that depends on the player however, 5-7 sentences for general strategy and only one clause per character is already short. Bar run on sentences, there's really no excuse in my mind to further trim these lest you risk a vague ass strat that will have players coming after you with walls of text (they'll do it anyways if you vote against them, but at least you have proof) for interpreting their strat in a way that's inconvenient to them. Depending on in character actions rather than a set general strategy is way too risky.
    well yeah, i agree it's already too limiting for detailed strats like what we want (and probably GP as voters)

    but eh, i also agree that people not reading/voting is kinda bad for game with voters.

    it's a joke, but should we create a tldr version for those who don't bother to read?
    obviously gonna be bad since the voters who don't wanna read the full part might be biassed tho :|

    Battle size: I don't mind trimming 300k to 200k or even 150k, doesn't really matter to me. For character pool, I'm only willing to trim it based on how many players play the game. Because even if you have 8 players play, there is always going to be someone with a big team because they're aiming for cheap mid/low tiers to fill their roles or someone over paid for top tiers and doesn't have points for others etc. With my game plan this game, I was expecting to overpay for people I really wanted and have a rather small team but I got a good amount of dudes for cheap. I don't think it's any use to trim it just for strat readability.
    character's kinda fine as it is imo.
    just need to kick some useless one like Zhao's GH that got kicked by Renpa easily. Even Oukotsu got more things to base his power compared to this guy. Ogiko and the useless guys can stay as they are (except if we want to treat a Great Heaven to Domon or Eibi level lol )

    maybe we should explore round robin/blok match instead which you should separate your generals team for 2 battle so that the generals per match are going to be less.
    Maybe just full team for final or something.

    that alone should cut things considerably since we gonna do 150 vs 150 instead of 300 vs 300 anyway

    I like prep, don't see how it's not useful if you don't run a brute force team. Just gotta be creative and keep possibility to execute in mind.
    not sure.. most of the cases are only making traps/make fortification, train flame hare, how to cooperate with each other, some clause people don't bother to read or even take considerations.

    elites are useful, especially if you have a non brute force unit like fast cavalry or poison guys. I mean, you can't expect to send mountain men or giant cavalry at Moubu/Houken and expect them to have an impact when they were shredded in the manga like nothing.
    while mountian men, bandits, fast cavalry, poison dog/cats do give some tactical advantage which is interesting, the "X general's elite" is kinda worthless with a lot of generals having >90 str and people think they won't pose a problem to them.
    but eh, the changes from 300k to 150k might make them slightly better.

    dunno if making 1 point = 1000 will balance them more or not

    If you want to address troop types, just have people go with a spread at the end of auction and then stick with it for the rest of the game. I also want to incorporate state type advantages.
    state type advantages? seems fun


    Quote Originally Posted by Nordlending View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Need to look over the Martial fighter GG. As things currently stand it sounds like they can never be stopped unless you have a stronger guy to duel them. The tactical generals will always lose.

    It is balanced because they are worth far more than their counterpart in the bidding, but I kind of find it boring.
    the problem is the game is based on voters lol..

    can't do much if voters don't change their mind imo :|
    Last edited by gn_x00; 02-22-2017 at 02:36 AM.

  15. #15
    Some suggestions:

    Battle size: 300k-->200k/150k

    Different battle conditions: Perhaps make a round or two where one guy has to defend and one guy has to attack.

    Defender has an area with great terrain advantage and prep time while attacker has troop advantage of 200k vs 150k maybe.

    Elites pricing reduction: 1k for 1 point to encourage more usage of elites.

    Reduction of general pool: Cut the pool in half randomly every time you host or maybe by 30-40% at least and don't tell anyone whose available and whose not available. Discourages sitting, makes it so people don't have a crap load of generals and thus clauses.

    I think specifying troop type is ok but how about we limit it so we don't have lets say 200k archers or 200k cavalry or something ridiculous. Troop composition has to be at least somewhat reasonable if your being specific. Like maybe not more than 50% of a troop type lol.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by felixng2015 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Reduction of general pool: Cut the pool in half randomly every time you host or maybe by 30-40% at least and don't tell anyone whose available and whose not available. Discourages sitting, makes it so people don't have a crap load of generals and thus clauses.
    uh.. we can't plan about our team then?

    :|

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by gn_x00 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    uh.. we can't plan about our team then?

    :|
    You can include them actually but I definitely want the total to be cut down a bit. I think theres too many in the pool unless we have at least 8 players.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by gn_x00 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    well yeah, i agree it's already too limiting for detailed strats like what we want (and probably GP as voters)

    but eh, i also agree that people not reading/voting is kinda bad for game with voters.

    it's a joke, but should we create a tldr version for those who don't bother to read?
    obviously gonna be bad since the voters who don't wanna read the full part might be biassed tho :|
    I dunno how you could get all you want to say in a tl;dr, I personally will try to make corners if I don't play next game.


    character's kinda fine as it is imo.
    just need to kick some useless one like Zhao's GH that got kicked by Renpa easily. Even Oukotsu got more things to base his power compared to this guy. Ogiko and the useless guys can stay as they are (except if we want to treat a Great Heaven to Domon or Eibi level lol )

    maybe we should explore round robin/blok match instead which you should separate your generals team for 2 battle so that the generals per match are going to be less.
    Maybe just full team for final or something.

    that alone should cut things considerably since we gonna do 150 vs 150 instead of 300 vs 300 anyway
    I had a plan for a group match where each player would only pick 2-3 generals for it, and we also had a plan for extended play but burnout would be a huge problem. Time would be a problem for round robin, as some didn't submit their strats in time so it caused delays.


    not sure.. most of the cases are only making traps/make fortification, train flame hare, how to cooperate with each other, some clause people don't bother to read or even take considerations.
    don't forget hole digging


    while mountian men, bandits, fast cavalry, poison dog/cats do give some tactical advantage which is interesting, the "X general's elite" is kinda worthless with a lot of generals having >90 str and people think they won't pose a problem to them.
    but eh, the changes from 300k to 150k might make them slightly better.

    dunno if making 1 point = 1000 will balance them more or not
    I think we should get rid of types like Ouki's elites or Renpa's, just keep the ones on top of their class like yotanwa mountain men who are also versatile.


    state type advantages? seems fun
    yep, dunno how useful it would be though.

    The Glorious Fellowship of the Round Jacuzzi:
    https://i.imgur.com/tDbgtsy.jpg

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Void View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think we should get rid of types like Ouki's elites or Renpa's, just keep the ones on top of their class like yotanwa mountain men who are also versatile.


    yep, dunno how useful it would be though.
    easiest would just to turn those X's elite to be fast cavalry. it's the simplest since their better firepower is kinda meh since we'll always fight someone with some sort of general

    well, gotta elaborate more about the state's advantages

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by gn_x00 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    easiest would just to turn those X's elite to be fast cavalry. it's the simplest since their better firepower is kinda meh since we'll always fight someone with some sort of general

    well, gotta elaborate more about the state's advantages
    meh, might as well make generic fast cavalry available for everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Void View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I was thinking for the next one we could choose a "base" army for each of our Kingdoms and add effects, like:

    Qin: base soldiers easily susceptible to morale swings (at 120% power when a general with high leadership leads them, at their worst when that general dies or a general with low leadership leads them)
    Wei: base soldiers resistant to morale swings, serious by nature (fights their best all around but susceptible to drastic leadership feats, like Renpa in Sanyou or if a GG dies)
    Zhao: base cavalry is 25% stronger, base infantry is 25% weaker
    Chu: base cavalry is 25% weaker, base infantry is 25% stronger
    Han: base archers are 25% more likely to kill or something
    Yan: all base troops can transverse through rough terrain 25% faster
    Qi: base soldiers are 25% stronger when defending an area or something

    thoughts?

    The Glorious Fellowship of the Round Jacuzzi:
    https://i.imgur.com/tDbgtsy.jpg

Posting Permissions

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