Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ATHATH]

So, Moskurg, quick question.

Has the GM ever mentioned to you that you can not cheapen armor or build cheap boats without capturing the mountains or Jungle respectively?

Wait, really?

If that is true, I recommend getting rid of those restrictions and replacing the rainforest and mountains bonuses with the following: All metallic items and wooden parts of items (like armor, tanks, iron hulls for ships, etc.) are cheapened by one level for a side while it controls the mountains. All wooden items and wooden parts of items (like boats, arrow shafts, wooden fortifications, paper, etc.) are cheapened by one level for a side while it controls the rainforest.

All in favor of this change, say "Aye".

Aye.

[10ebbor10]

That was the original bonus as Iituem did it.

It got changed for reasons I do not know.

[stabbymcstabstab]

here's what we got told so theirs no confusion.

Lowering the expense of horses requires control of the plains.

Lowering the expense of armor requires control of the mountains.

Lowering the expense of ships requires control of the jungle.

[evictedSaint]

To clarify, this is the quote from Iituem:

You will receive an effective Expense reduction for all primarily metallic mundane items you design in future, for as long as you retain control over this region.

Question : Do our current metalluc designs get the bonus as well?

Your current designs are aimed at taking advantage of what metal was available in the taiga.  The expense bonus reflects your ability to design more metal-heavy equipment in future.  At the moment I'm disinclined to apply the bonus retrospectively (applying to both sides).

This was the original plan for territory bonuses.

Since Arstotzka spent several phases trying to get working plate armor cheaply, I didn't see it as fair for Moskurg to similarly spend a single revision to drop the cost of their scale mail to Normal Cost so everyone in their army can walk around fully kitted-out when they don't have the mines in the mountains.

Conversely, I don't see it fair for Arstotzka to spend a single revision to drop their horses to Normal Cost when Moskurg spent several phases getting lancers with their plains bonus.

So when I mentioned this to warn them against attempts to make cheap horses or cheap ships, it was not to exercise my clear and obvious bias towards Moskurg, but to prevent them from wasting a turn attempting to do something that wouldn't work.  With the entire realm of magic at both sides disposal, I didn't think preventing one level of expense without an accompanying bonus would be such a big deal.  Lightning defeats steel troops, and caltrops defeat horsemen, after all.

BUT, if people would prefer owning the territory gave a bonus to future designs requiring the accompanying materials, then I'll do it that way.  Arstotzka can spend their revision getting an equal number of horsemen as Moskurg, and Moskurg can spend their revision kitting out every foot soldier like Arstotzka did.  I personally don't think that makes sense, but if both sides agree then I'll roll with it.

Spoiler: A note from Iituem (click to show/hide)

Greetings from China!  Looks like Bay12 isn't blocked here after all (to my surprise).  A brief note to say that I'm not intervening or trying to overrule Saint, this is a comment with their invitation.

Regardless of my original intent on the nature of the territorial bonuses, Saint is GM now and therefore his decisions supercede earlier ones I may have made.  Indeed, altering the nature of the terrain bonuses to essentially raise a maximum 'cap' on material usage is an excellent idea and in the spirit of the game.  More importantly, it does not change what has come before; you only created plate once it became possible to do so with excessive metal.  If Saint wants the same to apply to ships, that's their call, although my personal feeling is that a jungle restriction on wood should perhaps restrict high quality wood in ships (making powerful ships but less frequently) and making megaships of some sort.  As ever, however, Saint has the call here.

Similarly, if Saint feels that they can balance a cavalry matierial restriction on the plains, they can feel free to do so.  Probably this just means either nerfing the nature of the bonus or improving the bonus in the other territories.  I won't give details away of the other thread, but from my observation they've done an excellent job of applying such a nerfed penalty without getting carried away in either direction (too weak or too strong).

[10ebbor10]

This was the original plan for territory bonuses.

Yup, which at no point meant what you suddenly changed it too. It was always used a cost reduction bonus for new designs.

Conversely, I don't see it fair for Arstotzka to spend a single revision to drop their horses to Normal Cost when Moskurg spent several phases getting lancers with their plains bonus.

We were not spending a revision, we were using a given expense credit to lower the expense of a design. I see no reason why we should not be able to do that.

If Moskurg wants too, it should be able to use an expense credit to drop the cost of it's armor from Expensive to cheap.

I didn't see it as fair for Moskurg to similarly spend a single revision to drop the cost of their scale mail to Normal Cost so everyone in their army can walk around fully kitted-out when they don't have the mines in the mountains.

I do not see any issue with that. Their chainmail is a design they started with, why should they not be able to make it cheaper if they want to spend the effort?

So when I mentioned this to warn them against attempts to make cheap horses or cheap ships, it was not to exercise my clear and obvious bias towards Moskurg, but to prevent them from wasting a turn attempting to do something that wouldn't work.

The problem is that you changed the rules to protect a Moskurgian advantage, not that you eventually decided to inform us of that fact.

There is no reason for it not too work. There was never any prior indication that it would not work. The fact that you're faced with suprise from both sides is clear evidence of that.

With the entire realm of magic at both sides disposal, I didn't think preventing one level of expense without an accompanying bonus would be such a big deal.  Lightning defeats steel troops, and caltrops defeat horsemen, after all.

In that case, your descriptions do not at all reflect what goes on in the battlefield, and this entire game is pointless because we have no idea what's going on.

You described the Cavalry as a massive danger, an overwhelming force that we could not stop. Is it then surprising that we want it too? If you're now saying that cavalry is not important, then I have no idea what's going on anymore.

((Also, faraday cage => lightning does fuck all to steel troops)).

BUT, if people would prefer owning the territory gave a bonus to future designs requiring the accompanying materials, then I'll do it that way.  Arstotzka can spend their revision getting an equal number of horsemen as Moskurg, and Moskurg can spend their revision kitting out every foot soldier like Arstotzka did.  I personally don't think that makes sense, but if both sides agree then I'll roll with it.

I would like for the rules not too suddenly change midgame specifically to twarth our plans, so yeah.

But anyway, you've told them our plans now, so so much for not helping Moskurg. You're giving them free hints on what the opposition is doing.

[evictedSaint]

I will retract the mechanic requiring the related territory to be held in order to allow expense levels below Expensive for certain techs.

It was a poor decision to impose it, and for that I apologize.  I assure everyone that it wasn't an attempt to protect Moskurg, but instead a fumbling on my part as a GM.  I hope you guys can forgive me for the mistake.

Territories will provide a bonus to solid -1 to the overall expense for newly researched techs that relate to them, as they did before.

[evictedSaint]

-accidental doublepost-

[Iituem]

Okay, so I did a blow-by-blow post on this, but it seems to be resolved.  In short, this one's on me; I dropped off some very hurried notes just before I left for China (didn't think I'd be able to access Bay12 from here) and Saint tried to interpret them best they could; I think I might have left all of zero notes on how the terrain bonuses were implemented, and Moskurg never got theirs so Saint never actually had experience seeing how that worked whilst still a player.

The decision to limit expense was a good one from Saint's perspective, as they hadn't observed the ruling being enforced in Arstotzka's thread (I reasonably expect that Saint ran through all the Design, Revision and Combat updates I did in Arstotzka's thread but probably didn't have time to comb the whole thread).

[somemildmanneredidiot]

Posting to be aware of things here.

[ATHATH]

So, Arstotska. There's some recent policy changes that we'd like to talk with you about.

See, you've been executing your prisoners. We Moskurgians don't like that. As such, I am issuing an ultimatum: Either you switch back to Pragmatism (or Chivalry), or I start wiping cities off the map.

[Taricus]

Ignore him, he's going nuts. Though thanks for the policy change, your troops morale is going to be tanking pretty soon.

[10ebbor10]

Nope it won't. Your troops morale is going to tank.

Our troops are not the ones dying.

[Taricus]

It'll tank about as fast as your troops can dodge lighting

[10ebbor10]

So, not at all?

Plate is many things, but not agile.

[Taricus]

Exactly!