Some have the time, for the quickies, 
Nothing but HI and HC being recruited is one of the least desirable aspects of this game. Let’s have a reason to recruit something different.
Different troop attributes and maintenance costs for each nation.
Examples:
Elven archers have, say, 8 attack and 6 constitution.
Rhu MA have no maintenance cost, LI cost 1/turn instead of 2.
Harad LI have 15 MPs, cost 1/turn.
Corsair transports can hold 500 LI instead of 250 each, get a +20% bonus when navy cmdr issues CptrPop/DstPop orders.
Dwarvish cavalry not available at all.
Or more simply, eliminate the distinction of ‘heavy’ vs ‘light’ troops, and let the arms/armor be that determinant. The choice becomes, cavalry, infantry, or mercenaries.
Yeh I quite like them I’m playing with some feedback from a player about the stats for troops. I think then we can add extra move (or limit other classes, so HI move 12 max for example) and go from there. At present it’s just chucking out ideas and having some fun with it all. But I’ll try to collate a list for the coming year and see if we can use any of it.
Clint
Mine is kinda reflective in sense of what has been stated before… But I would like to see the code changed in two areas… All dealing with how victory points are assigned…
First nations wealth at end game be gold reserves only… Not consideration for the value of a nations stores!
Second that the computation for number of troops be real military strength instead of numbers based on the total army constitution instead of total number of crap troops a nation has.
But hey it’s alot fun now for me to equip my higher qualty troops and smoke these PRS military nations…
KingMaker Now there was a very good boardgame! Nearly as much fun as escape from Colditz! 
I played BOFA on 24hr turnaround, it was great fun, would do it again!
Untold War would be fun also on a 24hr turnaround basis too! 
I’d like Apple mac compatable automagic style order input software, complete with mapping information when inputting XML files.
Not too much to ask?
:o
Thing i always noticed is that once starting troops go – everyone always raises Heavy Infantry – Heavy cavalry if have the mounts and leather and can afford it – but never really see anyone raising an army of just the lower troops like archers and Light infantry etc !!
So how about making it realistic somewhat by Adding Pikemen that work or get a bonus against Cavalry or Crossbowmen that get a bonus against heavy infantry as there arrows can penetrate the thick armor !! or could give bonus’s to the troops already allowed to raise against the other troops something along those lines !!
Dave, all your comments seconded. g) might be achieved (sort of) by having LC and AR consuming zero food. h) is maybe a bridge too far though I like the principle…
Cheers
Mike
we had this discussion over and over before and most of the good ideas have been compiled on LG Tilleys website, if thats still operational
AFAIK he differentiated between changes “within” and “outside” the code. I guess Clint is looking for changes within the code. max movement could probably be changed to 15, while adding a new troop type would be difficult.
How about adding another sell and/or natsell after the 690 order. Nation maintenance costs still get paid (or not) as normal.
Don’t confuse tactical movement for strategic movement. Alexander’s, Hannibal’s and Napoleon’s infantry moved at the same strategic rate, be they light or heavy. Which reminds me, I once calculated that Mongol cavalry traveled from Kiev to Cracow at a daily movement rate of between 5 & 6 miles (8-9 km).
For those interested: The combat system is that of a preWW I Polish math professor’s theory of combat. He studied Napoleonic warfare and drew quanitative conclusions from that. By all means disagree with it, but it is a system and a system should be replaced with a system and not filed/eroded/modified, since that throws the rest of the system out of balance.
That’s interesting and I would agree with the “take care” approach, most certainly.
Ed,
I concur with you that the “totality” of any modifications to the system has to be carefully thought through. The result of the current system is that it makes no sense to hire anything other than “heavy” troops. That’s goofy. Also the value of armor & weapons is relatively bogus, with little bearing on morale or combat effectiveness.
my “one wish” was that the combat/army system be redone. I did use the word system and I meant the entire enchilada. And I offered up a bunch of ideas on ingredients to improve things. I didn’t offer a new “system” because that’s a big job to create, model, test, playtest, etc.
Dave
How about start with 12 characters instead of 8… since the cost per order is quite high, but I think most of the turn work is pretty automated, we get the benefit of more orders immediately…
How about accelerating how quickly you can get to 21 characters…
I’ve plumped for something that can probably be tweeked in the code relatively easily (just like all IT changes :))
Michael
I agree with many of the sentiments about changing the combat system. I like these ideas:
Changing to infantry / cavalry / archers only.
Add a rock-paper-scissors effect where certain classes of troops are more effective versus certain other classes (encouraging mixed troop armies).
Substantially increase the combat significance of:
- command rank (especially)
- training rank
- morale rank
- TERRAIN
- attacking versus defending
- presence of a friendly PC
- weapon level
- armour level
The scaling doesn’t have to be difficult - a simple linear model with a higher slope than currently used would be fabulous.
I really like the idea to change the movement rates - make infantry move at 10 and 12, and cavalry move at 20 and 24! Ok, maybe a bit exaggerated, but the concept is a good one.
I think having the quality-level of troop type hired influence the PC loyalty is a bit much. I could see “pressing” troops into service lowering loyalty (one time per recruit order) at every PC with troops recruited from it, or even a decrease in tax revenue / commodity production when you are actively recruiting.
Personally, I would like to see more flexibility with the whole Mage class. I’d like to see more utility spells and PC/army assisting effects added to their spell repertorie. It may difficult or impossible to add new spells.
Trying to add vague game-affecting political realism to an email game is futile. Just look at how ugly the current US electoral system is…
The only vague thing I’d ask for is a more persistent fog-of-war effect. Some randomization of starting armies, starting PCs, dragon-responses, encounters, artifact effects, even some starting character abilities.
Mark F.
Bernd, thanks for the pointer to Lawrence Tilley’s “second edition” web page. I think he has some good ideas on it. The ones I’ll specifically bring up on this thread are his ideas for combat/army changes (per my note above). Along with Drew and others, Lawrence suggests removing the heavy / light distinction of troop types and removal of men-at-arms as a troop type. Then, only armor type would truly differentiate troops. He also suggests an algorithmic method for giving archers much more value: they get a “first strike”. i.e. the first round of combat would be archers firing. infantry & cav wouldn’t attack in the first round. I presume that dragons, artifacts & such would all join in on the 2nd round of combat (i.e. archers would get a new round zero in which to attack pre-pended to the current combat algorithm).
Dave
Dave
some of this simply does not work… The negative effects would would allow the DS to increase the moral of thier pc’s but would adversely effect all the FP… the very metal production to equipe troops at the level required for recruitment in the game to just stay the same in pc loyalty do not exist…
Second since the current hording is done for Game Victory conditions about success of the nation really wouldn’t change much… Remove the wealth associated with stores wealth to nation victory points would… reward in victory conditions equiping your troops Bingo! most nations would equipe thier troops!
Next guard orders do work… But many players do not understand how army moral and pc loyalty effect agent orders… It’s mainly the hire for Free lovers with 10 moral army’s that fail to understand it’s always better to still 765 for 30 moral… buy food to get the increase in moral while building… Learning to reinforce your high moral army’s instead of leting them die… then you find CL agents scratching thier heads why some 50 com is injuring them when they just killed a 70…
Just some food for thought on guard orders…
Terry,
thanks! good feedback. As Ed said earlier, we need a real system and it needs to be thoroughly thought through and playtested. Many of my ideas likely need tweeking or perhaps discarding. But the point is, Clint wanted ideas. So I put a bunch out there for discussion. If changes are made, I do indeed hope that the combat/army system is overhauled because it’s goofy now. would that change the game? big time! Is that bad? or good? well, depends on whether the new system improves things or not. but certainly your point about balance does indeed have to be a major consideration.
cheers,
Dave
Yeah it gets kinda painful at times paying double for not selling your metals then not getting credit for placing superior troops in the field byt the fact those metals increase all aspects of thier combat effectiveness…
One noted side effect when you do this anyways players rememver your armies are less vulnerable becuase of it… a target you less… It’s just alot fun being an impact player or always striving to be one.
Hey good luck in your Games Dave…