Hunger Mutator

[WhiteWolf]

I read tactics that people train troops and when they get hungry they sent them to the enemy to die.

To balance this out we could implement that hungry units have less attack power (AP) than non-hungry units.

i.e. militia have 35 AP when they are not hungry, now if they get hungry they'll have 10 less AP resulting them to have 25 AP.

i.e. sword fighters have 55 AP when they are not hungry, now if they get hungry they'll have 10 less AP resulting them to have 45 AP.

This way it would be much more attractive to feed your troops instead of letting them die~

Or am i wrong on this ?

[Bence791]

Yes, you are. Totally unnecessary.

I read tactics that people train troops and when they get hungry they sent them to the enemy to die.

Where did you read it? We don't send our soldiers to die... We train them to be able to defend ourselves, but if there are no big battles, we are stuck with plenty of hungry soldiers. And since we have a brain, we rather crush our enemies instead of letting them starve to death. Simple as that.

This way it would be much more attractive to feed your troops instead of letting them die~

If I have food, I feed them of course... Like once every 1-2 months of gameplay. Because if you have enough food, you are likely to be going for knights or you are doing something bad (if you have enough food to feed at 1:20 or so). Why bad? Because if you have spent too much time to get much overproduction of food, your army will be weak (of course there can be cases when you don't have a good army nor food, but let's just ignore those). So see the point?

[Shadaoe]

Because if you have enough food [...] you are doing something bad

For me, the main part of the game is the economy and village-building.
I know it's necessary to have many sodiers in MP, but seeing that it came to the point where making an economy capable of feeding soldiers is bad saddens me.
That's why I love playing Florescence for example, because both parts of the game are equally important, and I think it's closer to the original singleplayer game than regular multiplayer games.

Nothing against what you wrote bence, I was just using this quote to post my thoughts on the subject

[WhiteWolf]

Now, people just slaughter their units before feeding them.

Ben said it~

Doesn't really matter tho, it was just an idea which seemed logic to me..
You have less energy, less strenght when you're hungry in real life..

[Bence791]

Ben meant that they fight with them, you meant they send them to the enemy to die (at least it looked like that). That's not the same for me

@Shad: I get it If you read the context, you'll get what I meant with "you are doing something bad". Normally the players only have food to feed their economy, except for:
- They have too much of food production (yes, it is bad, not because you have food or something, but because your corn is being turned into bread instead of pigs+leather, the latter will give much less food, but more soldiers possible, which is actually more valuable, if your economy runs smoothly, and I really doubt that you'd have enough sausages for 70-80+ soldiers at that time ).
- Little army ---> less food needed for them.

And it is bad, I think you can agree :p
(I meant early game, of course it is good if you already have so much food lategame that you can keep as many soldiers alive as possible, so you'll have superiority on the battlefield. But, mostly sausages :p)

[Shadaoe]

@Shad: I get it If you read the context, you'll get what I meant with "you are doing something bad". Normally the players only have food to feed their economy, except for:
[...]
And it is bad, I think you can agree :p

Nothing against what you wrote bence, I was just using this quote to post my thoughts on the subject

I actually read your post and fully understood it.
As I wrote, the quote was just to say my thoughts on a basis, not to actually answer to your post or say it wasn't true.
I understand what you said, but it's exactly what my post said : (here is a summary)
It is sad that it is bad to have enough food to feed the soldiers.

I didn't actually comment your post, I just felt like writing my thought on the multiplayer army-focus, I didn't answer to anyone, didn't say that anyone was wrong, just posted my thought as they came, without any solution, or without saying there is an issue. Just a post.
Sorry if it felt like I said you were wrong

[Ben]

I think Shadaoe is merely saying that he doesn't like that it is "wrong" to feed your troops. That is, he wishes that it wasn't a bad strategy to have to feed your army.

As for this topic/idea, I'm thinking that I'm not totally against it, as long as there was only one other speed at which condition was diminished. Having too many would be bad because it would be too hard to grasp the game's mechanics. The neat thing about "quick hunger" is that it would indirectly make a map harder, so we wouldn't really need a starting resources setting

In addition to the other problems mentioned about this idea, another issue is that quicker hunger = less troops = harder to attack = more camping = annoying campers = annoying games = Ben going crazy = ***BOOOOM***

[Menszu]

Time for some radical stuff.

I share Shadaoe sadness about food industry beeing completly pushed to the minimum required. As my signature states I find food part of the game same important as fighting. The food is the thing which separates KaM from others stratiegies. More to speek if I yell 'Dawać żarcie! - Bring the food!' everydoby who had ever played KaM in the past knows what game I mean imidietally even if they forgotten it otherwise.

To the point:
I like idea that WhiteWolf proposed, and want to add even more.
Why cant we have like 3 levels of hunger - The feed bar divided by simple two lines indicating levels.
- Hungry soldiers have as WhiteWolf said -10 to their attack value. Soldiers in KaM are hungry when they have I guess around 0,1 - 0,2 of the bar left, maybe even more 0,3
- Normal state, from the level the soldiers apear when trained to the level of hunger.
- Feed up state , from full to the state they are trained +10? to attack

To sumarize, with that, player with strong economy might even consider feeding troops right after training before sending them up to the front. Which would be great from both gameplay, flavour and just realizm purposes. Healthy city might keep their forces at max efficiency.

I can see no flaws here, and only good sides. Possibility of bringing food more importance, more basebuild options to consider, and simple more strategic depth enchancing the KaM best feature.
Please share your thoughts.

[WollongongWolf]

I can see no flaws here, and only good sides. Possibility of bringing food more importance, more basebuild options to consider, and simple more strategic depth enchancing the KaM best feature.
Please share your thoughts.

Everything has flaws, even this idea, there are always bad points . But in any case, I like the idea and also got trouble finding the flaws (and I'm also one of those guys being saddened that food is so very little important). A little tweaking might/will be needed in the numbers, but the idea is nice.
What I do think is needed in this tweaking is taking into account how strong a rushed army will be compared to a well fed army, especially since a rush army has 21 minutes in it's normal state to defeat a town that chose a strong economy (however, the trick is to find a balance so rushing is possible, which will take a long time).
Also a thing that needs to be considered is feeding troops that have a high food level (like for now, soldiers above a certain level get no food, even if they are asking for it)

But I really like this idea, especially since what I like about kam is the food part (which makes it imo far better than games like age of empires).

[Krom]

Just a crazy idea, What about doing it similar to Warcraft, but with food? For each food item in Store you are allowed to recruit one more citizen or warrior. No food reserve in store - no recruitment. Hm?

[sado1]

Krom... I'm sorry, but just no. xD Well... I think that if any tweak is required then it's just a minor one. Maaaaaybe the "-10/0/+10 effectiveness of soldiers" idea is something to consider - it's a small tweak indeed.

[Ben]

Why cant we have like 3 levels of hunger - The feed bar divided by simple two lines indicating levels.
- Hungry soldiers have as WhiteWolf said -10 to their attack value. Soldiers in KaM are hungry when they have I guess around 0,1 - 0,2 of the bar left, maybe even more 0,3
- Normal state, from the level the soldiers apear when trained to the level of hunger.
- Feed up state , from full to the state they are trained +10? to attack

To sumarize, with that, player with strong economy might even consider feeding troops right after training before sending them up to the front. Which would be great from both gameplay, flavour and just realizm purposes. Healthy city might keep their forces at max efficiency.

I can see no flaws here, and only good sides. Possibility of bringing food more importance, more basebuild options to consider, and simple more strategic depth enchancing the KaM best feature.
Please share your thoughts.

This idea will making camping way more effective. A camper could just spam vineyards/ bakeries and mass food. Since he is being campy, his men can be fed much faster than the attacker's troops can, so the attacker will always be at a disadvantage.

[Shadaoe]

If the attacker isn't under siege, he can expand much more easily than the camper who is besieged, so I guess that wouldn't be as you said Ben, but that's just a guess

I like the idea of making food more important, the fed soldiers bonus seems quite nice indeed, and Krom's crazy idea is .. crazy :p but crazy things can come up well

[Da Revolution]

If the attacker isn't under siege, he can expand much more easily than the camper who is besieged, so I guess that wouldn't be as you said Ben, but that's just a guess

Depends on the map. Most people won't expand outside of their frontline (towers) but keep space in the safe zone behind the frontline. So this argument won't be right for most maps I guess.

[Siegfried]

?

We're missing some answers here. Have they been split off?