ARMY LISTS?

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Thu May 20, 2010 4:36 pm

SRW1962 wrote:
76mm wrote:I still don't see why do can't enable an option to turn off the unit caps in the army lists, which are clearly artificial and arbitrary as you start to create larger armies (not to mention the fact that you cannot create 1000 or even 800 pt armies with many of the nations in RoR because of unit caps).
I totally agree with this sentiment and this is one of the things that I am pushing for, a simple on off button would be good.

I agree that it would enhance the game to provide a mechanism whereby a player could set up a DAG army only using the point costs of the game but otherwise not be limited by the existing troop lists. It is certainly possible to do this with the TT rules and would be an enhancement to the PC version. Of course for multi-player, the opponent would need to agree to play such an army.

Chris

SRW1962 · Post by **SRW1962** » Thu May 20, 2010 4:39 pm

batesmotel wrote: If you are going to leave them then why not set them to numbers that reflect the way teh BGs are used when developing the limits for the DAG (and quite possibly for the historical scenarios as well since LF and LH don't seem to be there in triple the numbers I would expect with the unit strengths as given). Of course if all BGs had a uniform strength of 1000 or 1500, I guess it would lose some of the unrealistic, artificial flavor it has now

Chris

I totally agree!

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Thu May 20, 2010 4:45 pm

The scale woudl have to vary army to army to make sense and this would just cause confusion.

We have no plans to remove build limits in the DAG - it just is not what the game is about. You would end up with ridiculous armies with masses of cheap filler and a few elite units that were all expendable because of the mass of cheap units. It just does not make for a good game so it's not going to happen!

Some people will argue it wont be like that but I disagree and have no plans to disable build limits I'm afraid!

Skanvak · Post by **Skanvak** » Thu May 20, 2010 4:58 pm

Iain, I strongly disagree with your last statement. Not that your analysis is worng, just that this is a game and I don't see why you want to forbid people would want to play custom army to play them? It will be useful for campaign too were you cannot respect the number if you build at the BG and not at the army.

Of course any custom army should fall into the custom game and there force be prevented to play against people that want to play alongside the balanced DAG. So every one can play the style of game they like. If you refuse you are simply playing GOD by saying us : what you find fun is bad so I punish you by not allowing you to play as you want but I will compell you to play as I want as I am the creator GOD.

As a customer, I feel I am entitled to be able to play as I want with the toy I bought. By the way, I would like simply a free army editor story to mixt unit that cannot have been in the same army to start, mainly for campaign purpose or experimenting. Bottom line, as SRW say, this can be done in the TT rule why prevent that on the PC? To punish PC player? or do you intend to go to every group of TT player and check if they respect the army list and if they don't you will take their game back, saying them you play bad what I have created so I must withdraw it from your sinner hands?

SRW1962 · Post by **SRW1962** » Thu May 20, 2010 4:58 pm

iainmcneil wrote:The scale woudl have to vary army to army to make sense and this would just cause confusion.

We have no plans to remove build limits in the DAG - it just is not what the game is about. You would end up with ridiculous armies with masses of cheap filler and a few elite units that were all expendable because of the mass of cheap units. It just does not make for a good game so it's not going to happen! Some people will argue it wont be like that but I disagree and have no plans to disable build limits I'm afraid!

Why would the scale have to vary from army to army, it doesn't now.

I can see your point and agree with your fears of ridiculous armies resulting from unit caps being removed in DAG games, but is there any way of making this possible so that people can use the DAG for scenarios or campaign games that may not fit in with the lists as given. Also surely it would be possible to differentiate between an 'official' DAG army and an 'unofficial' one in multiplayer, or make them password games only so that they can only be games between 2 consenting parties (I know that sounds odd), that way nobody can be taken advantage of.

76mm · Post by **76mm** » Thu May 20, 2010 5:01 pm

iainmcneil wrote:We have no plans to remove build limits in the DAG - it just is not what the game is about. You would end up with ridiculous armies with masses of cheap filler and a few elite units that were all expendable because of the mass of cheap units. It just does not make for a good game so it's not going to happen! Some people will argue it wont be like that but I disagree and have no plans to disable build limits I'm afraid!

Wow, I have to say that I find your attitude very difficult to understand and disappointing. But OK, then, if you don't want to take this step, how about making the unit caps, you know, somewhat rational, so that the caps increase as the point size of the battle increases? Or maybe allow us to create large armies with more than 2-3 nationalities?

As for your arguments about "ridiculous armies" and what makes a "good game"--sorry, but I think that is for the players to decide. After all, you allow RoR armies to fight SoA armies--as if that is not ridiculous? Not to mention the fact that many armies in campaign battles may have unit rosters which don't neatly conform to your precious lists.

Its your game and I guess you can do what you want with it. But with this attitude I'm not sure I'll buy any more of them.

deeter · Post by **deeter** » Thu May 20, 2010 5:01 pm

If people really want to generate armies without caps or change the unit scale, they can already do this by building their own scenarios, although it's a pretty tedious process.

Deeter

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Thu May 20, 2010 5:08 pm

Hi Iain, I dont think anyone is suggesting the current DAg lists are abolished or opened to buy whatever you want, those official lists should remain as is. i think what players are looking for is an alternative way to either play completely open ended games and or fight with armies they feel are more historical, for whatever reasons than the lists allow.
I started a thread 5 pages back about an open ended DAG option that would be an ADDITION to the normal dag battles... The comments(except for one) seamed to indicate would be a nice feature.

As for the consequences of facing an opponent with a ridiculous list? Oh well, as an option its "buyer beware" and you could simply not accept open ended challenges and play via private challenges w preestablished lists...

Amaz_Ed · Post by **Amaz_Ed** » Thu May 20, 2010 5:22 pm

As for the consequences of facing an opponent with a ridiculous list? Oh well, as an option its "buyer beware" and you could simply not accept open ended challenges and play via private challenges w preestablished lists...

I only play passworded games in the league and campaigns that I play in. Otherwise I like to play open challenges when I am in the mood for a game. I don't like the idea of starting games and fighting against armies that bear no resemblance to the list that they are based on. I'm all for opening things up a bit, but I don't want to feel that I can't accept a challenge from someone I don't know just because I don't know how 'sensible' they will be with their selections.

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Thu May 20, 2010 5:47 pm

Amaz_Ed wrote:
As for the consequences of facing an opponent with a ridiculous list? Oh well, as an option its "buyer beware" and you could simply not accept open ended challenges and play via private challenges w preestablished lists...
I only play passworded games in the league and campaigns that I play in. Otherwise I like to play open challenges when I am in the mood for a game. I don't like the idea of starting games and fighting against armies that bear no resemblance to the list that they are based on. I'm all for opening things up a bit, but I don't want to feel that I can't accept a challenge from someone I don't know just because I don't know how 'sensible' they will be with their selections.

Thats why it would be addtional and OPTIONAL

Xiggy · Post by **Xiggy** » Thu May 20, 2010 7:14 pm

As long as we are on this subject, I would like to see a double army option. I have played some people that want 800 to 1000 point armies. If you are Roman or Seleucid maybe that works. Most of the Knight based SOA armies you can field a decent army at those points, but a lot of armies at 600 + points in ROR get very weak. I was wondering if you could have an option for double armies, so you double the base and the caps at 600 - 1200 points.

If you want to play a custom list, I guess you could design of scenario and add you own 2 armies to it maybe. If they want to do a buyer beware option, then MAKE IT FLASH in RED, so you cant miss it.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Fri May 21, 2010 9:30 am

If we opened it up like this it would raise a huge number of issues and we would not be able to supoprt them. It would not work as you imagine and you'd be asking for lots of tweaks and fixes - you'll just have to trust me on this

We're just not going to waste our limited resources for FoG on this. It isn't going to happen.

Scaling the build limits is something on our wish list, but that's a very different issues that does not spoil the game.

SRW1962 · Post by **SRW1962** » Fri May 21, 2010 9:55 am

Okay, thats fair enough.

Can you answer me on this question, are the BG's all supposed to be of the same nominal strength in actual men not elements (like the TT rules say they are) despite what the unit numbers say (EL,CH, ART excepted of course)?

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Fri May 21, 2010 10:06 am

All BG's are 4 bases. Thats the only real scale there is - everything else is for flavour.

Skanvak · Post by **Skanvak** » Fri May 21, 2010 3:50 pm

Well I won't believe you, every game have free editor and I don't see how a free army selector will be a problem.

Btw does a 500 men BG does scale loses compare to a 1500 men BG? The question is does one hit on a 500 men BG equal 1 hit on a 1500 men BG?

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Fri May 21, 2010 3:58 pm

Skanvak wrote:Well I won't believe you, every game have free editor and I don't see how a free army selector will be a problem.

Btw does a 500 men BG does scale loses compare to a 1500 men BG? The question is does one hit on a 500 men BG equal 1 hit on a 1500 men BG?

The strength numbers have no bearing what so ever on the game or on how the limits are set in the DAG lists. They are purely there to increase the entropy in the system.

Chris

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Fri May 21, 2010 4:19 pm

Skanvak wrote:Well I won't believe you, every game have free editor and I don't see how a free army selector will be a problem.

The game does have an editor, and a very robust one at that , and no, many games dont come with one.

Slitherine has no duty to open up the Server based DAG battles as open editable free form play, although many of us would love to see it in some form(including myself)...
They have also made it clear that this will not happen, mostly due to resources and technical issues, which we might not like to hear, but it is what it is....

SRW1962 · Post by **SRW1962** » Fri May 21, 2010 4:24 pm

batesmotel wrote:
Skanvak wrote:Well I won't believe you, every game have free editor and I don't see how a free army selector will be a problem.

Btw does a 500 men BG does scale loses compare to a 1500 men BG? The question is does one hit on a 500 men BG equal 1 hit on a 1500 men BG?
The strength numbers have no bearing what so ever on the game or on how the limits are set in the DAG lists. They are purely there to increase the entropy in the system.

Chris

Now that's a really good answer, I like it

Skanvak · Post by **Skanvak** » Fri May 21, 2010 5:51 pm

Chris, you are right, the loss are a percentage of total unit strength so only more chaos. (I forgot that when I wrote the message).

To GrayMouser, unless a customer demand is illegal, company are here to bluid the product the customer want. What is that non sense that it is the customer that has to adapt to the product???? It is obvious that a large majority, you inlcuded, want it. Then they whould make it in one of the future expansion.

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Fri May 21, 2010 6:21 pm

Skanavak, although it would be nice if we were investors that could influence the developers of "our" product that would be one thing, however we merely bought a product that is doing what it was advertised too do and more....

Although I would love the feature we are talking about I doudt we are the majority
I have no idea how many people bought the game (10-12 k?? ) but i am guessing the dozen or so that posted about a wishlist for a new feature that was never promised is "the majority"

Who knows, maybe if 9000 more people post about it , maybe we will get it