City Siege

[Kuross]

I like your system SG. I'm assuming seigers can't be attacked by players inside the seiged city and conversely those trapped in the city can't attack those doing the seiging until the wall, or any city defenses, are down.

Just to add to it...

- As long as there is a hex unoccupied around the city being seiged, any player (friendly player that is) may leave or enter the seiged city through that hex.
- If enemy players hold a city, a resistance of NPCs would be available to aid those of the city's element to take back the lost city.

I'll post more on this in another thread meant for this kind of thing. Don't want to derail the thread too much

[Glitch]

Well, the resistance would be the remaining cards in the city's garrison.  If, at the end of the seige, it had exactly 18 cards left, they'd remain as a form of "resistance".  Or maybe things are getting too complicated.

[cylecylecyle]

The overall concept of WoE is amazing. I do however see one issue that has killed several decent turn based strategy games. That being the concept of a siege being as follows: i do damage, you do damage, heal, wait, repeat. Its has the habit of becoming incredibly monotonous and leads to party exploitations. Human players WILL find the best deff, and best offn, thus effectively making a siege become who has the bigger army. My idea, if you will, is a proposed solution to what I personally see as becoming a serious grief quite rapidly.

The idea is called "Greed, Power, Glory" or gpg from this point hereafter;
The basic concept behind gpg is to wager a selection of your forces and their combination of stats and powers against that of the opposition. The besieged city or town would be afforded a varying degree of defensive bonuses based on the scale and size of their respective defenses. this bonus however would come at a cost. That cost being a reduced or limited "playing field". In other words defenders would be able to select less cards for the application gpg events.

on the flip side of the coin falls the besieging armies! woooo! more power to the aggressor is the exact concept here. they will be aloted additional slots based on one of two categories. 1) the duration of a siege if a player is going to spend turn after turn after turn in a stale mate history has proven over and over the attacker eventually gains the upper hand. this can easily be shown by either A) bonus to over all score or B) an additional card slot each subsequent turn of attack. (feel free to omit this rule since it will tilt the game in the long run and prevent team camping plus encourage defenders to flee attack attacker to persist as discussed end page)

Now for the reason this is better in my opinion to hit heal game play. the gamble thats involved. each "army" if you will is built with in a set time limit from the whole of each players and or teams deck. this allows hundreds of variations every single round! once the two teams have been compiled or time runs out the allocated points for each stat and ability are added giving players an overall score for example:

Team A Deff; total score before random events calculation (the cool way of saying dice rolling) would be lets say 100 pts
Team B Offn; total score before random events calculation (the dice rolled act as multipliers:0) would be lets say 200 pts
in a series of hit heal games Team B wins every time. in this method a REC occurs and a number (1-10 is multiplied into the respective tables. this allows for even a fluke win by either party but over all still make the bigger win and the smaller loose. This is in turn followed by a casualty report. thats right in gpg the cards you use to do battle are actually at risk of being "destroyed" (idk if repairs or shards or ect. have been included and there-fore i will leave the exact concept of destroyed undefined) they are done based on a purely statistics based scale if u lose by x pts u loose x amount of pts worth of cards rounded down so say your lay out is as follows;

now these number are based on stats and abilities. rareness is not a factor a rare card that is weak will still be worth less then a great card thats pretty common.

key:
[6] = a single 6 point card.  7=7 ect.

team A win the fight by 150 points (all number are rounder so a 147 becomes 150 just as a 154 would be come a 150 as well. !!!! congratulations team A. 

This is team Bs' layout:
[1] [7] [3] [3] [4]
since Team A won by 150 pts team B will loose or have sacrificed 15 pts worth of cards in order to no loose their city. the dmg dealt is completely unbiased its go from left to right or right to left randomly to avoid player stacking 1 pt per card if a card is matched it is "destroyed" so after the 15 pts Team B is left with these original cards

[1] [7] [3] [3] [4]
 x    x    x   x    x  5   pts
[7] [3] [3] [4]
  x   x    x    x       9   pts
[7] [3] [3] [4]
 x    x    x   x        13 pts
[7] [4]                 
  x   x                   15 pts
[7]                       end result

i understand that this may seem like an extreme case of "destroyed cards and you would be correct but please remember this is exaggerated example to provide clarity on the case. most cards will score far above a 3 or 4 in pts and most matches will be closer is score. but the gamble is, do i play high and hope he goes low? or do i play low and hope he goes high but gets a bad roll? its like micro poker.

as a final aspect if gpg-ing each player or team will be provided the option to retreat at any time before or after a fight has occurred. this is important since even if team A crushed Team B on turn 1 team B may win the next several due to the fact that your entire arsenal is at your disposal. (as a side note this would help drastically in keeping card libraries balanced and constantly refreshed) so unless a player is wiling to basically go all or nothing for a win eventually one will cut their losses and either fail to gain anything but bruises or inversely a player will have fought and died for naught as the enemy now sweeps though their glorious city. the value of cities now has an even grater importance: to what extent am i willing to die.
Remember that sieges were never pretty and often, next disease, the most costly part of war both in lives and gold.

lastly i said note my roommate pointed out to me. the bonus to attackers could apply not to the over all score but the multiplier bu i feel that it would be to sever. and he recommended increasing the multiplication range from 1-10 to say 1-15. this allows for a greater win or loss turn but also less predictability. in my opinion it would be epic to apply that dice on a per card basis in fact it would be ideal however i am sure the coding would be quite difficult to accomplish and therefore the above concept was designed.

i appreciated your time and feed back as always.
Mc-sTr3Tch aka e-1337-cyle

[cylecylecyle]

the above was designed to work with the "garrison concept so many of your have been discussing and perfecting because i believe i forgot to mention that pivotal piece

[Daxx]

That looks interesting; I get the feeling that I'm going to have to read it about five times to get the concept straight in my head though. Could you run through a concrete example from start to finish, calculating points and so forth as you go?

[cylecylecyle]

sure i dont see y not. and im sorry if soem ideas were vague but im still unsure how some part will work but ill do my best. im workin on a mock seige right now and ill post it once i have worked it out fully and provided a decent points basis.

[cylecylecyle]

Here would be my best "mock siege" guys

and this is only version 1.0.1 so feel free to pick it apart.

Secnario;
Team A is holding a small town (the weaker deffence i assume that there will be mulitipel levels so assume this to be the lowest (higher levels will afford extra slots!)) and Team B has decided to besiege it and take it for their own.

round 1.
Team A is afforded 10 card slots like the first row in a duel for cards only creature cards may apply.[ remeber this is a !*!mini game not a duel!*!]
so lets assume for simplicity that Team A is being run by AI it would go for the largest build possible. i would love this to be human based but again idk how it would work i have noticed this issue brought up several times.

assuming Team A chose mark of  . with these 10 slots its your decision or the AI's to gambel as many points or the combined power of your cards, vs. ur oposition and a random roll.

so 2 thigns can occure here go for broke and make the biggest score possibel or make a stack of cards you dont care about and hope for the best

here how i broke down score for the defending team since the skills required in real life would not be the same in both offence and deff. why should they in a game? the hp of a card up to a value of 10 (this limit is to nerf gravity from 10 stacking armogio plus its cost in quantum. in addition each shield counts as a score of 15 but what a risk if you should loose one.

so here would be fires wave one lay out and score:

ash 14, ash 14, phoenix 8, ash eater 2, ash eater 2, crim drgn 13, fire shield 15, ash 14, fire spirt 4, and lava golem 6.

it looks liek this in card sets
[14][14][08][02][02][13][15][14][04][06] >= a total score of 92

lets assume that Team b is  mortal enemies after all they would be allotted 10slots including weapons and the option to add one extra slot per turn the longer the fight goes on.

on offence the scores are reversed attack with a 10 pt cap + quantum
so lets assume Team b wants to be efficient 6x ice dragons and 4x blue crawlers. simple and powerful

look like:
[06][06][06][06][19][19][19][19][19][19]>= total score of 138

meaning before the roll the diff in scores is Team B ahead by 46 (i eliminated rounding ,again for simplicity). i will break down later the results of wining vs loosing in brief.

on my desk i rolled a D12 for both teams. Team A recived a 7, B a 2
644
this is not good news for team B since the new tallies become A= 644 B= 276
the new differance is 368 in favor of team A!.

the casualties would break down like this
my origianl posted methoted not only wouldhaven taken a bunch of codeing but also did not fit with much of the rest of the game. insted i created w/l brackets

win by:
000-100 both players discard 5 cards at random form their hands
110-200 losing player looses 6 wining looses 4
210-300 losing player discards 7 winner only 3
310-400 8-2
410-500 9-1
510-600 10-1 this is to represent a sweeping victory but failure to take the city unless it is out of defenders
610-700 10-1 the city falls assuming the attacker won
710+      10-0 a prefect win

with the above bracket it becomes pretty obvious what happens. Team A won by 310-400 meaning a discard of 3 for them and 7 for Team B wave two would then ensue with each team refilling their respective fields and Team B adding an additional slot for prolonging the siege (this stacks i would assume infinitely?) until one team retreats or is defeated.

I hope this has helped and i know i changed a lot of the original concept but after playtesting with piece of paper my first concept was just super complex over time. this is quick easy and deadly which was the overall goal for my post.

Thx 4 ur time all
til next we clash- Mc-sTr3Tch aka e-1337-cyle