Hunger Mutator

[Ben]

Sorry, I should've put a note here. I'll do it now.

~MOD: Topic cleaned. Please stay on topic. If you'd like, open a new topic concerning camping, but be very polite during discussion. Thank you.~

[Bence791]

Ben, imo it was kind of related to the "hunger" modifications proposed...

[The Duke]

i like the idea to adjust strenght of units by hunger or how godd they are fed

[Esthlos]

i like the idea to adjust strenght of units by hunger or how good they are fed

I agree.

(Though I have to admit I thought it already worked like this )

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?

No, please; one of the things that makes KaM... well, "KaM"... is that in this game you can make whatever you want as long as you can feed it or let it die...

[Bence791]

i like the idea to adjust strenght of units by hunger or how good they are fed

I agree.

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?

No, please; one of the things that makes KaM... well, "KaM"... is that in this game you can make whatever you want as long as you can feed it or let it die...

Funny how you just disagreed yourself.


I still don't support any of those ideas. Even not as a mutator.

[Esthlos]

i like the idea to adjust strenght of units by hunger or how good they are fed

I agree.

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?

No, please; one of the things that makes KaM... well, "KaM"... is that in this game you can make whatever you want as long as you can feed it or let it die...

Funny how you just disagreed yourself.


I still don't support any of those ideas. Even not as a mutator.

I wrote that I like the idea to make troops strength dependant on how recently did they eat, and that I don't like the idea to insert an arbitrary army limit in the form of stored food being required for recruiting.

How is that contradictory?

[Bence791]

well, "KaM"... is that in this game you can make whatever you want as long as you can feed it or let it die...

You can't just attack with enweakened soldiers...

[Ben]

Bence is right. Storming a base is hard enough as is with your troops dying like flies to mass archers. How much harder would it be if your soldiers died before they dealt a successful hit?

[Menszu]

Everything has flaws, even this idea, there are always bad points

Sure, just said I don't see ones, I left it for others to figure out

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)

Good point, as I remember right there was an idea about feeding button, and even confirmation window of some sort to make sure we don't feed troops accidentaly. Adding second 'total feed' button might be needed but it shouldn't be hard since we have free spaces in the interface after move and attack.

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?

Jeah, now... I'm the radical revolutionist remember ? XD
As sado said minor tweak over major change in mechanics. Food importance is just enchancement of game cool mechanic without changing how thing work.

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.

Camping again, perhaps I should attach a catapult idea together with this one As far in my games I really don't encounter camping as shown in replay you mostly refer to. Quick sumarise : cursed ravine, 2v2v2v2 teams, fear of you dominating the battlefield in first 10 minutes.
Furthermore, noone stops the agresive side from feeding his troops himself, nor stops him from attack before his troops get hungry. Than probably in the first attack everybody would be thesame, unless the so called camper is very generous liege lord who fed his retainers right after they trained (cool for him)

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

So to speak food industry takes some additional space, good to claim some more land, let the so feared camper rot in filth behind his towers.

Ben, imo it was kind of related to the "hunger" modifications proposed...

Jeah I saw the posts but didn't had time to fully read them than. But let's focus on just camping and two statements I remember.
I don't think the game and community itself should be held ransom by few camping noobs, holding us from improving our game. I remember in the removed post there was statement about 3 hours siege of a camper not beeing fun. Well I can agree with that, but than if game is really decided after futile hour, you can just return your troops to the middle and write to the camper that either he's going out in ten minutes or you're leaving. It shouldn't hurt the ego that much.
There was also a statement about a flaw in design, well I'll quote myself from what I posted month ago - we need more simple script maps with stuff to do (and win) in the middle of the field of battle. Resources to gain, points to hold and win.
Maybe just play the cool people, on more open maps, and maybe scripted ones.

While we're on scripted maps, let me offtop in single sentence: Thanks to the map tournament going on, we gain lot's of cool scripts, but they are mostly 'baroque' complicated scripts creating new gameplay styles, on the other hand what we need is more classic maps with simplest capture points to score victory, or gain resources for standing here and there.

In the end we're talking about +10/-10 bonus, and of course the numbers are furthermore to negotiation. Assuming the swordfighter has 55 strenght? And axefighter 35, in case hungry swordsman meets feed up axeman (hungry soldiers shouldn't be sent into batte at all) they have the same 45 hit chance, however swordsman would still dominate with his supperior armour. The bonus would apply more to fight of the same type of troops making real difference.
Furthermore, of course missle troops might need scaled down modificators +5/0/-5 or so.

[Esthlos]

well, "KaM"... is that in this game you can make whatever you want as long as you can feed it or let it die...

You can't just attack with enweakened soldiers...

Nothing is stopping you from feeding them... (you can even issue the order sooner, so that your serfs start walking in time).
If the idea is to force players to feed their troops instead of starting suicidal battles in order to use those soldiers who are starving, then of course with it you'll be forced to feed them instead of just using the hungry soldiers to attack!

As far as I know no maps are so big that your troops can begin the march at full condition and reach the enemy town when already hungry: this means that only prolonged and/or delayed battles (a.k.a. sieges) could become a bigger problem with this change (your serfs have to travel more to reach those sieging soldiers, thus your economy may suffer if you have to feed them and can't instead just start the attack to make use of those starving).

Yet, camping works in maps where there is no point in expanding and controlling locations beyond your base (like in Cursed Ravine), meaning that in these maps you have to either attack or back off - there is no point in sieging, nothing to be gained.
Camping only works when sieging other players is a plain dumb thing to do, and this modifier to troops' strength won't change that.

On the other hand, in maps where you can gain a good advantage by denying map control to others camping spells doom on the camper regardless, and in these maps the time your serfs have to spend to feed your distant troops is a negligible disadvantage at most anyway, and should be far outweighted by the advantage you get by controlling the map.

[Bence791]

I wonder where you get all these points on camping and agressive gameplay if you don't even play multiplayer (I have never seen you in a lobby or something).

Nothing is stopping you from feeding them...

No food does...

Yet, camping works in maps where there is no point in expanding and controlling locations beyond your base (like in Cursed Ravine), meaning that in these maps you have to either attack or back off - there is no point in sieging, nothing to be gained.

It's totally false. Camping works on all the maps and there are no maps that would give you any kind of advantage over your enemies just for expanding outside your base. Only the disadvantage that your town will be more vulnerable (usually the space inside is more than enough, especially on some maps...).

Camping only works when sieging other players is a plain dumb thing to do, and this modifier to troops' strength won't change that.

I can only write the same as above. Camping ALWAYS works. With this modifier, you would give the attacker the huge disadvantage to lose attack power over time PLUS adding the defender an attack power boost (+20 compared to the attacker!), adding much to the unwritten "The disadvantages of the sieger" list. Seriously... Think about it.


I wouldn't like to repeat myself (or any other of us who supports my thoughts), so please don't say that camping isn't OP again. Because it is, by very much. Thanks in advance.

[WhiteWolf]

Nothing is stopping you from feeding them...

No food does...

lol..

[Esthlos]

I wonder where you get all these points on camping and agressive gameplay if you don't even play multiplayer

I started doing that from time to time.

Nothing is stopping you from feeding them...

No food does...

You're kidding here, aren't you? You must be. Seriously, the whole point of this proposed change is to make food more important so that players will actually start to make some more in order to actually feed troops!

Yet, camping works in maps where there is no point in expanding and controlling locations beyond your base (like in Cursed Ravine), meaning that in these maps you have to either attack or back off - there is no point in sieging, nothing to be gained.

It's totally false. Camping works on all the maps and there are no maps that would give you any kind of advantage over your enemies just for expanding outside your base. Only the disadvantage that your town will be more vulnerable (usually the space inside is more than enough, especially on some maps...).

Camping only works when sieging other players is a plain dumb thing to do, and this modifier to troops' strength won't change that.

I can only write the same as above. Camping ALWAYS works. With this modifier, you would give the attacker the huge disadvantage to lose attack power over time PLUS adding the defender an attack power boost (+20 compared to the attacker!), adding much to the unwritten "The disadvantages of the sieger" list. Seriously... Think about it.

Sorry, but here you missed the point by a long shot... it doesn't matter if at the moment there are no maps where there is something to gain with map control, maps are easily created and new ones may come at any time.

The point was that this change would make camping more powerful only when sieging is actually worth doing, which as you wrote just never happens. The logic consequence is that if you are sieging a player in a map where sieging is futile ("in a map where sieging is futile" simply means "always" if there are no maps where sieging is useful), then you deserve that disadvantage.

[Bence791]

You don't siege someone because it is useful but because YOU WANT TO WIN. Oh my god... And winning is already pretty hard because the defender has so many advantages over the attacker...

Seriously, the whole point of this proposed change is to make food more important so that players will actually start to make some more in order to actually feed troops!

For us (guys who usually visit TeamSpeak and play the 95% of "pro" games*) it won't change it the way you'd like to, it would just encourage pretty fast rushes. We wouldn't go mass food then either... With these fast rushes, the camper won't have that much of advantage (maybe +10 AP...), which is still BAD, but not as bad as waiting until our troops get hungry... Please get the point of the competitive MP gameplay as well, don't only focus on making food more important. This isn't the way...


*Yeah because there are some "randoms" around who have quite nice potential but don't come over

[WhiteWolf]

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

thanks for the support but i think that 3 levels are too much. However there already are 3 levels..

level 1 (no cloud above the head)
level 2 (a cloud indicating they are hungry)
level 3 (a cloud with a death mark)

still i think that 'normal' and 'minus 10' would be enough, otherwise feeding your troops would be to powerful,

besides try running with a full belly (just after you ate dinner) doesn't really give you plus 10 does it ;P.




Implementing this would certainly mean that the defensive player is at the advantage(unless he runs out of food ofc.), so there should be an bonus for the attacker ?

Maybe something like, storming units/running horseman have a first hit bonus, +20 AP at the first hit ?
To prevent miss use of the horseman the bonus could be given after they ran 3 tiles (like the melee units need 3 tiles to start the storm attack, correct?). Also a group that is in combat cannot be granted another bonus (like horses running around a tower = 6+ tiles are not given a second bonus).

Agree/disagree and why ?